Dominguez v. Deandre S. Thompson

Background

This personal-injury case arose from a car crash in the Bronx. The defendants removed the action from New York state court to the Southern District of New York because the parties were diverse. The court entered a case management plan and scheduling order that set deadlines for fact and expert discovery.

At the November 14, 2024 conference, defense counsel said the defendants expected to hire a biomechanical expert, an orthopedist, and a radiologist. The court allowed the parties four months for fact discovery and two additional months for expert discovery. The court repeatedly explained that the deadlines were firm and could be changed only for good cause, which would require a showing of diligence. The court also warned that experts whose disclosures were not timely provided might not be allowed to testify or offer evidence.

In March 2025, the court granted the parties one extension, while describing the request as marginal and warning that the parties should not expect another extension. After later extensions and adjustments, the defendants’ expert disclosures were due June 11, 2025, and expert discovery was scheduled to end July 9, 2025.

The defendants did not disclose their biomechanical expert by the deadline. On July 11, after the deadline had passed, defense counsel requested another extension to September 9, 2025. The request did not explain why the defendants had missed the deadline or describe efforts to meet it. At a July 15 conference, counsel said she had misunderstood the deadline and argued that the plaintiff and court knew the defendants intended to use a biomechanical expert. The court denied the extension request, finding it untimely and concluding that counsel’s misunderstanding and lack of demonstrated diligence did not establish good cause.

Motion for Reconsideration

The defendants filed a motion for reconsideration on July 29, 2025. They initially relied on Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 59 and 60, arguing mistake, inadvertence, surprise, excusable neglect, and exceptional circumstances. They also argued that the expert testimony was important, that the delay would be minimal, and that a parallel state case involving the same accident created an exceptional circumstance.

The plaintiff opposed the motion. Plaintiff’s counsel stated that defense counsel did not contact him about extending the expert deadlines until July 2, 2025—after the expert-disclosure deadline—and that the plaintiff opposed extending discovery. The opinion also recounts that defense counsel represented that she had reviewed transcripts of earlier conferences, but later acknowledged that those representations were misstatements. The court stated that it would take no further action concerning those misrepresentations at that time and instructed counsel to take greater care in future representations.

Legal Standards

The court applied Local Civil Rule 6.3, which requires a reconsideration motion to identify matters or controlling decisions that the court overlooked. Reconsideration is an extraordinary remedy generally available only for an intervening change in controlling law, newly available evidence, or a clear error or manifest injustice.

The court held that Rules 59(e) and 60(b) did not govern the motion. Rule 59(e) concerns altering or amending a judgment, while the earlier ruling was an interlocutory discovery order rather than a judgment. Rule 60(b) concerns relief from a final judgment, order, or proceeding, and the earlier order was not final. The court instead considered its authority under Rule 54(b) to revise interlocutory orders before entry of judgment, applying the standards for reconsideration and modification of a discovery schedule.

Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16(b)(4), a scheduling order may be modified only for good cause and with the judge’s consent. The court explained that good cause depends on the moving party’s diligence and that attorney inadvertence or oversight does not establish good cause.

Court’s Analysis

The court found that the defendants identified no legal precedent or factual issue that it had overlooked. The defendants had not provided evidence showing what efforts they made to obtain the biomechanical expert’s report. Their desire to retain such an expert had been known since November 2024, so the need for the discovery was foreseeable and had been considered when the schedule was created.

The court rejected the defendants’ argument that counsel’s misunderstanding of the deadline justified relief because the scheduling order clearly stated the June 11 deadline and the court had repeatedly emphasized the importance of compliance. It also rejected reliance on the plaintiff’s alleged agreement because the plaintiff’s counsel stated that the defendants did not raise the proposed extension until after the deadline had passed, and defense counsel did not submit an affidavit disputing that account. The court further rejected the argument that the plaintiff and court’s awareness of the planned expert justified an extension.

The court also considered six factors used by some courts when deciding whether to reopen discovery: how soon trial was scheduled, whether the request was opposed, prejudice to the opposing party, the moving party’s diligence, whether the need for discovery was foreseeable, and the likelihood that the discovery would produce relevant evidence. Five factors weighed against the defendants: trial and pretrial deadlines were approaching, the plaintiff opposed the request, reopening discovery would impose additional costs and delay on the plaintiff, the defendants were not diligent, and the need for the expert was foreseeable. Only the relevance of the proposed testimony favored the defendants.

Disposition

The court held that the defendants had not met the strict standard for reconsideration and had not shown good cause to modify the Rule 16 scheduling order. Defendants’ motion for reconsideration, Dkt. No. 23, was DENIED. The Clerk of Court was directed to terminate that motion.