Bromfield v. Bronx Lebanon Special Care Center, Inc.
- Sarah Cave
- 1:16-cv-10047
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
In Bromfield v. Bronx Lebanon, Judge Cave denied Lenora Bromfield’s request to reconsider a scheduling order about judicial notice and discovery.
Lenora Bromfield’s request to reconsider the scheduling order was denied. The underlying application concerning judicial notice remained denied without prejudice and could be revisited during dispositive-motion practice or at trial.
What happened
In Bromfield v. Bronx Lebanon Special Care Center, Inc., Lenora Bromfield asked the court to reconsider part of an October 8, 2020 scheduling order. That order denied without prejudice her request concerning judicial notice of matters in her filings and allowed the issue to be revisited later.
Bromfield argued that Federal Rule of Evidence 201 required the court to take judicial notice of those matters immediately. The court explained that judicial notice could instead be considered when deciding a motion that could resolve the case, such as summary judgment, or in the final pretrial order.
Judge Sarah L. Cave ruled that Bromfield had not shown the exceptional circumstances required for reconsideration and denied her motion. The scheduling order remained in effect, including her opportunity to reply to the defendants’ response about outstanding discovery disputes.
The detailed version
- Bromfield v. Bronx Lebanon Special Care Center, Inc. · No. 1:16-cv-10047
- Sarah Cave
- Oct. 26, 2020
Background
On October 8, 2020, the court entered a scheduling order addressing the defendants’ consolidated response to Lenora Bromfield’s outstanding discovery disputes and Bromfield’s reply. The order denied without prejudice Bromfield’s application supporting, and seeking judicial notice of, matters in her pleadings. It stated that the requests could be revisited in connection with motions that could resolve the case or at trial.
Bromfield moved for reconsideration of that portion of the scheduling order. The opinion does not decide the underlying claims in the case.
Legal standard
The court considered Local Civil Rule 6.3 and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b). A motion for reconsideration seeks to have the court revisit an earlier order. The court explained that this relief is exceptional and generally requires the moving party to identify controlling decisions or information the court overlooked that could reasonably change its conclusion. Reconsideration is not a chance to repeat rejected arguments or present new arguments or facts that could previously have been offered.
Discussion
Bromfield argued that the court had erred by not taking judicial notice of matters in her filings and that Federal Rule of Evidence 201 required the court to do so. The court agreed that Rule 201 permits judicial notice of certain matters but rejected Bromfield’s argument about when the court had to consider taking notice.
The court stated that the appropriate time to consider judicial notice of the relevant facts was when presented with a dispositive motion, such as a motion for summary judgment under Rule 56, or in the final pretrial order. The court concluded that Bromfield had not shown exceptional circumstances warranting reconsideration of the scheduling order.
Disposition
Judge Sarah L. Cave denied Bromfield’s motion for reconsideration. The court reminded her that the earlier denial of her application was without prejudice and could be revisited during dispositive-motion practice or at trial. The court also noted that the scheduling order gave her until Thursday, November 5, 2020, to reply to the defendants’ consolidated response concerning outstanding discovery disputes. The clerk was directed to close ECF No. 188 and mail a copy of the order to Bromfield.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.