Toussaint v. City of New York
- Analisa Torres
- 1:19-cv-01239
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Toussaint v. City of New York, Judge Torres denied Toussaint’s motion to reconsider the refusal to extend fact discovery.
The ruling directly affected Plaintiff Eddy Toussaint’s request for another fact-discovery extension and the Defendants’ opposition to reconsidering the court’s prior denial.
What happened
In Toussaint v. City of New York, the court had extended the fact-discovery deadline once, to November 11, 2019, and warned that it would grant no further extensions. Plaintiff Eddy Toussaint later requested another extension after the deadline had passed.
Toussaint asked the court to reconsider its denial of that second request. He argued that reconsideration was warranted, but the opinion does not identify any change in law or new evidence that he cited.
Judge Analisa Torres denied the motion for reconsideration. She concluded that Toussaint had not shown a clear error or that denying another extension would cause serious unfairness, noting his delay in serving discovery requests.
The detailed version
- Toussaint v. City of New York · No. 1:19-cv-01239
- Analisa Torres
- Dec. 17, 2019
Background
The court had entered a civil case management plan and scheduling order setting October 15, 2019, as the close of fact discovery. On October 9, Plaintiff Eddy Toussaint requested an extension. The court granted that request, extending fact discovery to November 11, 2019, and warned that it would grant no further extensions.
On November 15, 2019, Toussaint requested a second extension. The court denied that request as untimely and inconsistent with its earlier order. On December 11, 2019, Toussaint moved for reconsideration of that denial. Defendants opposed the motion on December 16, 2019.
Reasoning
The court explained that reconsideration is an extraordinary remedy and generally requires an intervening change in controlling law, new evidence, a clear error, or a need to prevent manifest injustice. The court found that Toussaint had not identified a change in controlling law or new evidence.
The court also found no clear error because Toussaint submitted his second extension request four days after fact discovery closed. It further found no manifest injustice. The deadline for serving interrogatories and initial document requests had been July 12, 2019, although the parties could change those interim deadlines without court approval. Toussaint did not serve discovery requests until September 30 or October 1, 2019. Because Defendants would have had 30 days to respond, the response deadline would have fallen after the fact-discovery deadline. The court had already granted a limited extension so Toussaint could serve and receive one round of discovery, despite his unexplained delay. His dissatisfaction with Defendants’ discovery responses did not justify reconsideration.
Ruling
Judge Analisa Torres denied Toussaint’s motion for reconsideration. The Clerk of Court was directed to terminate the motions at ECF Nos. 58 and 61. The parties were directed to continue addressing general pretrial matters, including discovery issues, with Magistrate Judge Debra C. Freeman.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.