Hu v. 226 Wild Ginger Inc.
- John Koeltl
- 1:17-cv-10161
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Hu v. Wild Ginger Inc., Judge Koeltl granted more time to object to a magistrate judge’s report but denied new evidence.
The plaintiffs, who received more time to object but were not allowed to supplement the inquest records.
What happened
In Hu v. Wild Ginger Inc., the plaintiffs asked for more time—until April 21, 2020—to object to Magistrate Judge Fox’s report and recommendation. They also asked to add evidence to the records from an earlier hearing to fix problems in their submissions.
The court explained that parties generally may not submit evidence to the district judge that they did not first present to the magistrate judge, unless they show a compelling justification. The plaintiffs did not provide that justification.
Judge John G. Koeltl granted the request for more time but denied the request to add evidence. He explained that the January 14, 2020 hearing occurred before the COVID-19 pandemic had broken out in New York City, so the pandemic did not justify the plaintiffs’ earlier failure to present the evidence.
The detailed version
- Hu v. 226 Wild Ginger Inc. · No. 1:17-cv-10161
- John Koeltl
- Apr. 2, 2020
Background
The plaintiffs requested an extension of time to object to Magistrate Judge Fox’s Report and Recommendation. They asked to extend the deadline to April 21, 2020.
The plaintiffs also requested permission to supplement the inquest records with evidence intended to correct deficiencies in their earlier submissions to Judge Fox. The opinion states that the inquest hearing took place on January 14, 2020.
Court’s analysis
The court explained that, absent a “compelling justification,” a party generally may not present the district court with evidence that was not previously presented to the magistrate judge. The plaintiffs did not articulate a compelling justification for failing to present the evidence during the inquest proceedings.
The court rejected the plaintiffs’ reliance on the COVID-19 pandemic. It reasoned that the January 14, 2020 hearing occurred before the pandemic had broken out in New York City, so the pandemic could not justify the plaintiffs’ failure to present all necessary evidence at that hearing.
Ruling
Judge John G. Koeltl granted the plaintiffs’ request for an extension of time to object to the Report and Recommendation until April 21, 2020. He denied the plaintiffs’ request to supplement the inquest records.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.