Wood v. Mutual Redevelopment Houses, Inc.
- Analisa Torres
- 1:14-cv-07535
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In Wood v. Mutual Redevelopment Houses, Judge Torres granted pro se plaintiffs’ request to file a short reply to defendants’ response.
Plaintiffs Tzvee Wood and Andrea Malester were allowed to file a reply of up to five pages by January 28, 2020. Defendants had to ensure that plaintiffs received their response, and the clerk had to mail plaintiffs a copy of the order.
What happened
In Wood v. Mutual Redevelopment Houses, Tzvee Wood and Andrea Malester, who were representing themselves, objected to a magistrate judge’s order closing discovery. Defendants responded to those objections.
The plaintiffs asked for more time to reply. The court explained that the federal rules do not provide for a reply supporting objections to a magistrate judge’s ruling, but the court could allow one in its discretion.
Judge Torres granted the request. The plaintiffs could file a reply of no more than five pages by January 28, 2020; defendants also had to ensure that the plaintiffs received a copy of their response.
The detailed version
- Wood v. Mutual Redevelopment Houses, Inc. · No. 1:14-cv-07535
- Analisa Torres
- Jan. 16, 2020
Background
On November 19, 2019, Magistrate Judge Debra C. Freeman issued an order closing discovery. Plaintiffs Tzvee Wood and Andrea Malester, who were litigating without lawyers, filed objections to that order. Defendants filed a response to the objections.
Request
Plaintiffs asked for an extension of time to reply to defendants’ response. The court noted that Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72 and the court’s individual civil practices do not provide for a reply supporting objections to a magistrate judge’s ruling. The court nevertheless stated that it had discretion to allow a reply.
Ruling
Judge Analisa Torres granted plaintiffs’ request to file a reply. Plaintiffs were required to file it by January 28, 2020, and the reply could not exceed five pages. The court also ordered defendants to contact plaintiffs to ensure that they had received defendants’ response. If plaintiffs had not received it by January 17, 2020, defendants had to arrange for delivery by January 21, 2020. The clerk was directed to mail plaintiffs a copy of the order.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.