Jimenez v. Regent Associates

Background

Defendants Home Thread, Inc. and Muhammad U. Andha asked the court to extend the deadline for serving their rebuttal expert report from August 1, 2025, through September 1, 2025. They said they had promptly retained an expert after receiving Plaintiff’s expert report, arranged for the expert to inspect the property, and learned that the expert needed architectural plans. Defendants obtained those records from the City’s Department of Buildings and provided them to the expert shortly before filing the request.

Defendants stated that the current fact-discovery deadline was September 15, 2025, leaving time for expert depositions after the proposed extension. They argued that the extension would not affect other case-management deadlines or prejudice Plaintiff.

The Parties’ Positions

Defendants relied on Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16(b)(4), which allows a scheduling order to be changed for good cause with the court’s consent. They argued that their diligence, good-faith request, and explanation for needing the additional records established good cause.

Defendants’ counsel reported that Plaintiff’s agreement to the extension was conditioned on receiving the plans obtained from the City and being allowed to file Plaintiff’s own rebuttal expert report after Defendants’ report. Defendants agreed to provide the plans but opposed creating an additional category of expert report, stating that doing so would prejudice their ability to respond and require changes to other deadlines. The opinion does not separately state Plaintiff’s counsel’s own explanation of that position.

Ruling

Judge Edgardo Ramos granted Defendants’ request. The court directed Defendants to serve their rebuttal expert report by September 1, 2025. The opinion does not state a separate ruling on Plaintiff’s proposed conditions concerning the plans or an additional rebuttal report.