Accely v. Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc.
- Sarah Cave
- 1:19-cv-05984-DC-SLC
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Accely v. Consolidated Edison, Magistrate Judge Cave denied deposition-related fees and a late document request in a discovery order.
Plaintiff Welby Accely and Defendants Consolidated Edison Co. of New York, Inc., Andy Feehan, Darren Brindisi, and Theresa Kohn; the order primarily concerned Accely’s discovery requests and Brindisi’s deposition.
What happened
In Accely v. Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc., Welby Accely asked the court to require payment of $550 in legal fees after Defendant Darren Brindisi’s deposition was canceled and rescheduled because of Brindisi’s illness. Accely also asked the court to order additional document production.
The court denied the fee request because the cancellation was promptly reported, quickly rescheduled, did not show a pattern of misconduct, and did not prejudice Accely. The court also denied the document-production request as untimely because the deadline for serving document requests had passed. Accely may make a supplemental request for specific, identifiable documents if Brindisi testified or testifies about documents that have not been produced. The court reporter’s costs remained covered by Defendants’ agreement.
In Accely v. Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc., Magistrate Judge Sarah L. Cave also encouraged the parties to schedule two remaining non-party depositions before fact discovery closed, while allowing them to request a limited extension if necessary.
The detailed version
- Accely v. Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc. · No. 1:19-cv-05984-DC-SLC
- Sarah Cave
- Sept. 8, 2020
Background
The court issued this order after a discovery conference. Plaintiff Welby Accely sought sanctions—an order imposing a consequence for alleged discovery noncompliance—in the form of $550 in legal fees connected to the canceled and later rescheduled virtual continuation of Defendant Darren Brindisi’s deposition. Brindisi’s counsel notified Accely about 15 minutes after the scheduled start that Brindisi could not proceed because of ill health, and the deposition was quickly rescheduled.
Accely also asked the court to order Defendants to provide discovery described in categories one through eleven of his August 17, 2020 letter. The deadline for serving document requests was January 6, 2020.
Analysis and Rulings
The court explained that it has broad discretion to decide what sanction, if any, is appropriate. It considered the circumstances of the cancellation, including the lack of a pattern of misconduct, the absence of a prior warning about missed deadlines, and the lack of prejudice to Accely. The court found that the last-minute cancellation was inconvenient but did not justify monetary sanctions. Plaintiff’s request for $550 in legal fees was DENIED. The ruling did not affect Defendants’ agreement to reimburse the court reporter’s costs for the canceled deposition.
The court also DENIED Accely’s request to order production of the documents listed in categories one through eleven because the request was untimely. However, if Brindisi had testified or later testified about specifically identifiable individual documents that had not been produced, Accely could make a supplemental request for those particular documents.
Remaining Discovery
The parties were encouraged to continue meeting and conferring about scheduling two remaining non-party depositions before fact discovery closed on September 30, 2020. If they could not schedule those depositions by that date, they could request a limited extension of time to complete them.
Disposition
Magistrate Judge Sarah L. Cave denied both Accely’s request for deposition-related legal fees and his request for the broader, late document production. The order permitted a possible targeted supplemental document request tied to Brindisi’s deposition testimony and did not alter Defendants’ agreement to pay the canceled deposition’s court-reporter costs.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.