Wood v. Mutual Redevelopment Houses, Inc.
- Analisa Torres
- 1:14-cv-07535
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
In Wood v. Mutual Redevelopment Houses, Judge Torres overruled plaintiffs’ discovery objections and granted defendants more time to seek summary judgment.
Tzvee Wood and Andrea Malester were required to proceed with discovery closed, while defendants received additional time to file an anticipated summary judgment motion.
What happened
Tzvee Wood and Andrea Malester, representing themselves, sued Mutual Redevelopment Houses, Inc., and others over their application to purchase a Mitchell-Lama apartment. They objected to a magistrate judge’s decision to close discovery, arguing they needed more depositions and documents.
The court found that the plaintiffs had received ample time for discovery, failed to follow the court-ordered schedule, and had not shown good cause for another extension. It also rejected their challenge to limits on document discovery. The court separately granted defendants’ request for more time to file a possible summary judgment motion.
Judge Torres held that the magistrate judge’s discovery decision was not clearly wrong or contrary to law, and overruled the plaintiffs’ objections. The parties were ordered to propose a briefing schedule for defendants’ anticipated summary judgment motion by September 9, 2020.
The detailed version
- Wood v. Mutual Redevelopment Houses, Inc. · No. 1:14-cv-07535
- Analisa Torres
- Aug. 5, 2020
Background
Tzvee Wood and Andrea Malester, proceeding without lawyers, brought claims against Mutual Redevelopment Houses, Inc., and other defendants arising from a dispute over their application to purchase a Mitchell-Lama apartment in New York City. The district court had referred general pretrial matters to Magistrate Judge Debra C. Freeman.
Judge Freeman had stayed discovery while defendants’ motion to dismiss was resolved. After the stay was lifted, the court allowed discovery to continue and later extended the fact-discovery deadline one final time, to September 27, 2019. Judge Freeman warned that the deadline would not be extended again absent extraordinary cause. She later ordered that discovery was closed and would not be reopened.
Plaintiffs’ Objections
The plaintiffs objected to the order closing discovery. They argued that fundamental fairness required additional depositions, that more time was justified, and that the scope of discovery had been improperly narrowed because their former attorney had agreed with defendants about producing certain documents.
The court applied Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(a), which requires a district judge to modify or set aside a magistrate judge’s non-dispositive ruling if it is clearly erroneous or contrary to law. Discovery rulings are reviewed under this highly deferential standard.
The court found no basis to overturn Judge Freeman’s decision. It concluded that the plaintiffs had not been prevented from taking depositions, had failed to follow the court-ordered deposition schedule, and had not shown the good cause required to modify the discovery schedule. The court also found that Judge Freeman had adequately examined the non-privileged writings documenting the agreement between the former attorney and defendants about document production. The court stated that parties representing themselves must still comply with court orders.
Request for More Time to File a Summary Judgment Motion
Defendants requested additional time to file a motion for summary judgment. The court granted that request under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16(c)(2)(E). The parties were ordered to meet and confer and submit a proposed briefing schedule by September 9, 2020.
Disposition
The court overruled the plaintiffs’ objections to Judge Freeman’s order closing discovery. It granted defendants’ request for an extension of time to file a motion for summary judgment. The Clerk of Court was directed to terminate the motion at ECF No. 259 and mail the order to the plaintiffs.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.