Baring Industries v. Rosen
- Analisa Torres
- 1:24-cv-05606
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
In Baring Industries v. Rosen, Judge Netburn denied reconsideration, leaving in place the denial of defendants’ request to add Conrad & Scherer as a third-party defendant.
The defendants’ attempt to add Conrad & Scherer, LLP to this case as a third-party defendant remains denied, although the defendants may bring a separate action against C&S.
What happened
In Baring Industries, Inc. v. Jared Rosen, et al., the defendants asked the court to reconsider its earlier denial of permission to file a third-party complaint against Conrad & Scherer, LLP.
The court had denied that request because adding the claims would delay the already lengthy case and require fact discovery to reopen. The defendants argued that the additional discovery would be limited, but the court disagreed and noted that Baring Industries had indicated it would seek more discovery if Conrad & Scherer joined the case.
Judge Sarah Netburn denied the motion for reconsideration. She said the defendants had not shown a change in controlling law, new evidence, clear error, or manifest injustice. The court stated that the defendants could bring a separate action against Conrad & Scherer, lifted the stay related to any objections, and set deadlines for any supplemental objection and responses.
The detailed version
- Baring Industries v. Rosen · No. 1:24-cv-05606
- Analisa Torres
- Nov. 17, 2025
Background
On October 10, 2025, the court denied the defendants’ request for permission to file a third-party complaint against Conrad & Scherer, LLP (C&S). The defendants then moved for reconsideration under Local Civil Rule 6.3.
The earlier ruling denied permission because adding C&S would unduly delay the already protracted litigation, including by reopening fact discovery. The opinion also states that the court had addressed multiple applications concerning the history of obtaining C&S’s identification, including the plaintiff’s delay in providing the attorney’s name.
Legal standard
The court explained that reconsideration is an extraordinary remedy governed by a strict standard. A party seeking reconsideration must show an intervening change in controlling law, newly available evidence, or a need to correct clear error or prevent manifest injustice. Reconsideration is not a way to relitigate issues already decided or present new theories.
Court’s analysis
The defendants did not argue that controlling law had changed or that new evidence was available. The court therefore considered whether the earlier ruling contained clear error or would cause manifest injustice.
The court rejected the defendants’ argument that adding C&S would not delay the case. Fact discovery had closed, and allowing the third-party complaint would require reopening that discovery and potentially addressing a motion to dismiss. The court also found the defendants’ assertion that any additional discovery would be “very limited” not credible, particularly because Baring Industries had said it intended to conduct additional depositions and written discovery if C&S were brought into the case.
The court also found no manifest injustice. The defendants remained free to start a new action against C&S. The court stated that the new action would likely be treated as related to this case under the applicable court rule, but would not further delay the existing litigation.
Disposition
Judge Sarah Netburn denied the defendants’ motion for reconsideration. The stay connected to objections under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(a) was lifted. The defendants could supplement an objection within seven days if they chose to pursue that relief; Baring Industries could respond seven days later, and any reply letter could be filed two days after the response. The Clerk was requested to terminate the motion at ECF No. 120.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.