Griffith v. Metropolitan Transit Authority - New York City Transit

Background

Claudette Griffith sued the Metropolitan Transit Authority, New York City Transit, and Jesse Seder. She alleged employment discrimination based on sex, age, and race under federal, state, and city law. Griffith was a former manager at New York City Transit who retired in November 2018. She alleged that Seder, her former supervisor, discriminated against her.

One example involved Peter Miller, a younger white male whom Seder initially hired in a position subordinate to Griffith and later promoted to General Superintendent Support Services. Griffith alleged that Miller then became her supervisor. The record showed that Griffith did not apply for that position, although her counsel asserted that she would testify that she would have applied but for a misunderstanding about the facility where the position would be located.

The court had set November 30, 2020, as the final deadline for fact discovery. Griffith had previously sought Miller’s application materials during discovery in June 2020, but defendants refused to produce them. Griffith did not bring the dispute to the court’s attention before the discovery deadline expired. She filed the letter motion at issue on December 18, 2020, seeking a conference and an order compelling production.

Legal standard

Because fact discovery had closed, the court treated Griffith’s request as a request to modify the discovery schedule and reopen discovery under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16(b)(4), rather than as an ordinary discovery request under Rule 26. Rule 16(b)(4) allows a court to modify a schedule for good cause. The court explained that this standard must be applied consistently with the goals of resolving cases justly, quickly, and inexpensively, and with Rule 26’s limits on discovery when a party has had ample opportunity to obtain the information.

The court considered factors including whether trial was imminent, whether the request was opposed, prejudice to the opposing party, the moving party’s diligence, whether the need for additional discovery was foreseeable, and whether the discovery was likely to lead to relevant evidence.

Court’s analysis

The court found that several factors weighed against reopening discovery. Although no trial date had been set, defendants’ statement supporting their expected summary-judgment motion was due on January 13, 2021, so reopening discovery would delay the case’s final resolution. Defendants opposed the request and would be prejudiced by additional discovery so close to that deadline.

The court found that diligence weighed most heavily against Griffith. She had known since at least June 5, 2020, that defendants would not produce the application materials. She did not ask the court to resolve the dispute while discovery was open, did not seek another extension of the discovery deadline, and waited until the November 16, 2020, deposition of Miller—two weeks before discovery closed—to pursue the issue further.

The court recognized that the requested information could be relevant under Rule 26. It nevertheless concluded that the information should have been sought while discovery was open. The court also stated that Griffith’s delay and lack of diligence were inconsistent with the goal of resolving the case quickly and inexpensively. One factor concerning an alternative deposition was neutral or slightly favored Griffith, but it did not outweigh the other factors.

Disposition

Judge Katharine H. Parker denied Griffith’s request to compel production after the close of discovery. The opinion does not state that the underlying employment-discrimination claims were resolved by this order.