Pyne

Background

The fact-discovery deadline had already been extended five times. The most recent extensions were requested by defendants CKR Law LLP and Jeffrey Rinde to allow them to take the depositions of plaintiffs Keith E. Pyne and Enrico Desiata. The court had warned that no further extensions would be granted absent compelling circumstances.

On August 22, 2025, defendants filed a letter-motion seeking an order compelling plaintiffs to appear for depositions, requiring them to produce additional documents, and extending the fact-discovery deadline for a sixth time. Plaintiffs opposed the motion. The opinion states that defendants did not file a reply.

Depositions

The court denied the request to compel the depositions and to extend the discovery deadline for that purpose. It found that Jeffrey Rinde had more than eight months to arrange the depositions but did not begin trying to schedule them until shortly before the discovery deadlines. The court also found that he did not propose specific deposition dates, did not telephone plaintiffs’ counsel or ask to arrange a scheduling call, and did not otherwise meet and confer before seeking court intervention.

The court applied the rule that a scheduling order may be changed only for good cause and with the judge’s consent. Good cause depends on the moving party’s diligence. The court concluded that defendants had done almost nothing to secure the depositions and improperly tried to blame plaintiffs for not scheduling defendants’ discovery. The court also stated that the failure to meet and confer provided an independent reason to deny the request.

The opinion’s footnote states that Rinde is an attorney and a partner in CKR, is representing himself in this action, and is also CKR’s counsel of record.

Additional Documents

The court also denied the request to compel additional document production and to extend the discovery deadline for that purpose. Plaintiffs had completed their document production on January 17, 2025. Defendants first asserted in April that the production was insufficient, without providing specifics, and Rinde later identified categories of documents he believed had not been produced.

The court noted that plaintiffs’ counsel agreed to ask the plaintiffs about the documents and eventually reported that the plaintiffs had searched and found no further responsive documents in their possession. Although the court criticized plaintiffs’ counsel for waiting until August to report the result, it held that defendants were the parties seeking relief and had not acted diligently.

The court further found that defendants had not requested a meet and confer about the allegedly missing documents and had not complied with Local Civil Rule 37.1. That rule required them to quote or provide each discovery request and response at issue. Without those materials, the court could not determine whether the documents had been properly requested. The court also found defendants’ description of the alleged omissions too vague and unsupported to justify an order compelling production.

Disposition

The conclusion states: “Plaintiffs’ letter-motion (Dkt. 85) is DENIED.” The body of the opinion identifies Dkt. 85 as defendants’ letter-motion, and the ruling denies defendants’ requests to compel depositions, compel additional documents, and extend the discovery schedule. The order also states that summary-judgment motions, or required letters concerning such motions, were due no later than October 2, 2025. The order was signed by Barbara Moses, United States Magistrate Judge.