Elijah Grizzard v. Thomas Cortese, et. al.
- Katherine Failla
- 1:24-cv-05555
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
In Elijah Grizzard v. Thomas Cortese, Judge Failla granted both discovery-conference motions and scheduled a telephonic conference about expert-report disputes.
The order affects plaintiff Elijah Grizzard and defendants Thomas Cortese and US Foods, Inc. by requiring the parties to appear for a discovery conference; it does not decide the parties’ dispute over the expert addendum reports.
What happened
In Elijah Grizzard v. Thomas Cortese, the defendants asked to change the deadline for exchanging expert reports after serving two addendum reports after an interim deadline. They said the experts received important medical records and films late, and that the plaintiff would not be unfairly harmed.
The plaintiff had asked to strike the addendum reports, and the defendants opposed that request. The court did not decide whether the reports should be struck or whether the deadline should be changed. Instead, it granted both requests for a discovery conference and scheduled a telephone conference for December 1, 2025, at 11:00 a.m.
Judge Katherine Polk Failla directed the parties to appear for the conference. She allowed the plaintiff, but did not require the plaintiff, to respond to the defendants’ request, and directed the Clerk of Court to terminate the pending motions at docket entries 37 and 39.
The detailed version
- Elijah Grizzard v. Thomas Cortese, et. al. · No. 1:24-cv-05555
- Katherine Failla
- Nov. 17, 2025
Background
Defendants Thomas Cortese and US Foods, Inc. requested a conference about discovery disputes and asked the court to permit a retroactive change to the expert-report exchange deadline under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16(b)(4). They sought to change the deadline from August 23, 2025, to November 7, 2025, which was also the deadline for all expert discovery. The defendants said this would make timely two addendum reports: a second addendum report from Dr. Feurer, served November 3, 2025, and a first addendum report from Dr. Ferriter, served November 6, 2025.
The defendants explained that Dr. Feurer did not receive certain emergency-room records until after the interim expert-report deadline, and that Dr. Ferriter did not receive complete medical films until after that deadline. They argued that the materials were important to the experts’ opinions and that the plaintiff had time to review the reports and question Dr. Feurer about the addendum. The defendants also said they were willing to produce Dr. Ferriter for another deposition and to accommodate the plaintiff’s concerns.
The plaintiff had filed a letter motion seeking a conference to strike the addendum reports, and the defendants had filed an opposition. The opinion does not decide whether the addendum reports should be struck or whether the requested deadline modification should ultimately be granted.
Court’s Action
The court stated that it was disappointed the parties had not resolved the issue without court involvement. It granted both motions for a discovery conference: the plaintiff’s motion identified at docket entry 37 and the defendants’ cross-motion identified at docket entry 39. The court scheduled a telephonic conference for December 1, 2025, at 11:00 a.m., to discuss the discovery disputes.
The court stated that the plaintiff may respond to the defendants’ cross-motion but is not required to do so. It directed the Clerk of Court to terminate the pending motions at docket entries 37 and 39. Judge Katherine Polk Failla’s order addressed the scheduling of a conference and did not resolve the underlying dispute over the expert reports.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.