Roadrunner Charters Inc. v. New York City, et al.

Background

Fact discovery closed on April 24, 2026. The court had previously denied a request to extend that deadline to allow completion of electronic discovery, finding that the parties had not shown the required diligence. Roadrunner later sought to extend the expert-discovery deadline from July 10 to August 31, 2026, because the defendants continued producing responsive electronic records. The court denied that request for the same reason.

Roadrunner then filed two letter motions. The first sought clarification and reconsideration of the denial of the expert-discovery extension. The second sought permission to conduct additional discovery concerning defenses raised in New York City’s answer.

Motion for Reconsideration

The court explained that reconsideration is available only when the court overlooked controlling law or important facts, when new evidence becomes available, when controlling law changes, or when reconsideration is needed to correct a clear error or prevent serious unfairness.

The court denied the motion. It stated that it was already aware that the defendants were producing electronic records after fact discovery closed. Roadrunner’s timely service of discovery requests did not change the fact that fact discovery included both serving requests and producing responsive documents. The parties’ informal efforts to address remaining discovery did not modify the case-management schedule or establish good cause to extend expert discovery.

The court also rejected Roadrunner’s argument that it reasonably relied on a July 13 email directing the parties to hold expert disclosures in abeyance. The expert-disclosure and expert-discovery deadlines had already passed before that email, and Roadrunner had waited until July 5 to request an extension.

Motion to Reopen Fact Discovery

After the defendants filed their August 10, 2026 answer, they asserted eight affirmative defenses, including lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, denial of municipal liability under Monell v. Department of Social Services, claim preclusion, and issue preclusion. Roadrunner sought permission to serve written discovery and take one deposition concerning the factual bases for those defenses and the municipal decision-making underlying the Buckeye Coach Action.

The court granted in part and denied in part this request. It permitted Roadrunner to serve contention interrogatories—written questions seeking the factual bases for a party’s positions—about the newly asserted defenses of lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, claim preclusion, and issue preclusion. The court found good cause because those defenses had not been asserted earlier, so Roadrunner could not reasonably have sought that discovery sooner.

The court reserved decision on Roadrunner’s request for document discovery and a deposition concerning those three defenses, stating that their necessity was unclear. It otherwise denied the request, including the requested discovery about municipal liability. The court found that municipal liability had been an issue from the beginning, that Roadrunner had addressed it in opposing the defendants’ dismissal motion, and that Roadrunner could have pursued related discovery during the extended fact-discovery period.

Ruling

The motion for reconsideration was denied. The motion to modify the discovery schedule was granted in part and denied in part. Roadrunner was permitted to serve the authorized contention interrogatories by August 25, 2026, and responses were due September 25, 2026. Judge Jeannette A. Vargas entered the order on August 19, 2026.