Wood v. Mutual Redevelopment Houses, Inc.
- Freeman
- 1:14-cv-07535
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 19
In Wood v. Mutual Redevelopment Houses, Judge Freeman denied all pending discovery-related motions, refused to reopen discovery, and denied leave to amend.
The order directly affected plaintiffs Tzvee Wood and Andrea Malester and the defendants in the case by closing discovery, denying requests for additional documents and depositions, and denying leave to amend. It also denied defendants’ challenge to subpoenas directed to nonparties and barred further discovery-related motions before the court.
What happened
Wood v. Mutual Redevelopment Houses, Inc. involved pro se plaintiffs Tzvee Wood and Andrea Malester’s requests for more discovery and permission to change their complaint. The court had repeatedly extended discovery and warned that September 27, 2019, was the final deadline unless the parties showed extraordinary cause.
The plaintiffs argued that defense counsel’s conduct had prevented them from obtaining documents and depositions, and they sought permission to add claims. The defendants sought to quash subpoenas directed to nonparties. The court found that the plaintiffs had not shown extraordinary cause or good cause, and that the defendants lacked standing to challenge the subpoenas.
Judge Freeman closed discovery, denied the plaintiffs’ requests to compel documents and depositions, denied leave to amend, and denied the defendants’ motion to quash. The court also stated that it would not consider further discovery motions, including requests to enforce outstanding subpoenas.
The detailed version
- Wood v. Mutual Redevelopment Houses, Inc. · No. 1:14-cv-07535
- Freeman
- Nov. 19, 2019
Background
The plaintiffs, Tzvee Wood and Andrea Malester, had been proceeding without a lawyer when the court issued several earlier scheduling orders, although Scott Richman later appeared for them and subsequently withdrew. The court had extended the fact-discovery deadline several times. In a March 21, 2019 order, it set September 27, 2019, as the final deadline for completing all fact discovery, including depositions, absent a showing of extraordinary cause. The court also warned that depositions should proceed even if the parties believed document production remained incomplete or the plaintiffs could not obtain a lawyer.
The plaintiffs continued to dispute the scope and adequacy of document production, the scheduling of depositions, and an agreement negotiated by their former counsel. They also sought leave to amend their complaint after the deadline for amendments had passed. The defendants moved to quash four subpoenas directed to nonparties, arguing that the subpoenas were excessive, burdensome, and sought irrelevant information.
Rulings on Discovery
The court denied any pending motions by the plaintiffs to compel additional document production. It declined to revisit its earlier determination that the discovery agreement negotiated by the plaintiffs’ former counsel was binding on the plaintiffs. The court also found that the plaintiffs had not identified specific documents or categories that defendants had agreed to produce but failed to provide.
The court denied any request by either side to compel depositions and refused to extend or reopen the discovery period. It found no evidence that defendants had used bad-faith tactics that would constitute extraordinary cause. The court also noted that the plaintiffs’ own objections and delays contributed to the failure to complete depositions before the deadline.
Request to Amend the Complaint
The plaintiffs sought to add implied race-discrimination claims, New York property-law claims, and new discrimination claims against Penn South Cooperative Federal Credit Union, which had previously been dismissed from the case. They also referred generally to possible supplemental claims based on later events.
Because the amendment deadline had expired, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16 required the plaintiffs to show good cause. Good cause in this setting depends largely on diligence—whether the party made reasonable efforts to meet the deadline and could not reasonably have done so. The court found that the plaintiffs had not explained why they could not have raised the proposed claims earlier. It also found that they had not shown diligence regarding the information about Penn South and had not identified the proposed supplemental claims or the events supporting them. The request for leave to amend was therefore denied.
Subpoenas and Disposition
The court denied defendants’ motion to quash the subpoenas for lack of standing. A party ordinarily may not challenge a subpoena directed to a nonparty unless the party seeks to protect a personal right or privilege, and the defendants’ motion did not claim such a right or privilege. The court nevertheless stated that it would not entertain belated motions to enforce subpoenas. Some subpoenas issued shortly before the discovery deadline had return dates after discovery closed, and the plaintiffs had not timely sought enforcement of subpoenas they believed were unanswered.
The court concluded that discovery was closed and would not be reopened. It denied any pending motion by the plaintiffs to compel further document production, denied any request by any party to compel depositions, denied the plaintiffs’ request for leave to amend the complaint, and denied defendants’ motion to quash the subpoenas. It also directed the court clerk to close the motion at Docket 201 and stated that it would not entertain further discovery motions, including motions to enforce outstanding subpoenas. The parties were permitted to proceed with any later summary-judgment schedule under the court’s instructions.
Read the full 19-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.