Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Sept. 29, 2020

Donnelly v. Sherer

Judge
Lewis Liman
Docket
1:19-cv-02121
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
2
DiscoveryCivil Procedure
In one sentence

In Donnelly v. Sherer, Judge Parker ordered Defendant to file a motion seeking limited reopening of discovery to serve surveillance videos.

Who this affects

The order directly affected Defendant Ricky L. Sherer, who had to file the motion, and Plaintiff Frederick G. Donnelly, who was given time to oppose it.

What happened

In Donnelly v. Sherer, the court treated the parties’ recent letters as a motion by Defendant Ricky L. Sherer to reopen discovery for the limited purpose of serving surveillance videos on Plaintiff Frederick G. Donnelly.

The court explained that discovery schedules may be changed only for good cause and with the court’s consent. It did not decide whether discovery should be reopened.

Judge Katharine H. Parker ordered Defendant to file a motion with supporting legal authority by October 13, 2020. Plaintiff could oppose the motion by October 27, 2020.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
Donnelly v. Sherer · No. 1:19-cv-02121
Judge
Lewis Liman
Date
Sept. 29, 2020

Background The court construed the parties’ recent letters as a motion by Defendant Ricky L. Sherer to reopen discovery for the limited purpose of serving surveillance videos on Plaintiff Frederick G. Donnelly.

Legal standard The court stated that Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16 permits a discovery schedule to be modified only for “good cause” and with the court’s consent. Courts determine whether good cause exists through a fact-intensive analysis that considers various factors.

Order The court did not grant or deny the request to reopen discovery. Instead, it ordered Defendant to file a motion by October 13, 2020, citing relevant case law and other authority and explaining why discovery should be reopened to admit the surveillance videos. Plaintiff had until October 27, 2020, to file an opposition.

The authoritative version

Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.