Tarzy v. Dwyer
- Analisa Torres
- 1:18-cv-01456
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Tarzy v. Dwyer, Judge Torres adjourned the case conference and denied Tarzy’s untimely request to reopen discovery.
Plaintiff Alan A. Tarzy and Defendants Andrew Dwyer and Dwyer & Barrett, L.L.C.; the order also postponed the parties’ case management conference and set procedures for anticipated summary-judgment motions.
What happened
In Tarzy v. Dwyer, the parties told the court they expected to file motions asking for judgment without a trial. They also raised a dispute about Plaintiff’s request for bank records.
The court postponed the July 13, 2020 case management conference indefinitely and directed the parties to follow its procedures for summary-judgment motions. Plaintiff also asked the court to require Defendants to produce documents that had not been produced during discovery.
Judge Analisa Torres denied Plaintiff’s request to reopen discovery because it was made after discovery closed on August 15, 2019, and Plaintiff had not shown a sufficient reason to reopen it nearly a year later.
The detailed version
- Tarzy v. Dwyer · No. 1:18-cv-01456
- Analisa Torres
- July 10, 2020
Background
Plaintiff Alan A. Tarzy, Esq., sued Andrew Dwyer and Dwyer & Barrett, L.L.C., formerly known as The Dwyer Law Firm, L.L.C. In a joint letter submitted before the scheduled case management conference, the parties stated that they anticipated filing motions for summary judgment. The letter also raised Plaintiff’s request for certain bank records from Defendants.
Court’s Analysis
The court noted that discovery had closed on August 15, 2019. A request to make a discovery motion after discovery closes requires a showing of good cause, meaning a sufficient reason for reopening discovery. The court found that Plaintiff had not shown good cause to reopen fact discovery nearly a year after it closed.
Ruling
Judge Analisa Torres ordered that the July 13, 2020 case management conference be adjourned indefinitely because the parties intended to file summary-judgment motions. The court directed the parties to follow the summary-judgment procedures in the judge’s individual practices, including deadlines for any pre-motion letter and the opposing party’s response. The court denied Plaintiff’s request to reopen discovery as untimely.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.