Tatintsian v. Vorotyntsev

Background

The opinion concerns two related actions involving Gary Tatintsian, Shoplink, Inc., Dimitry Khmaladze, IT Adapter Corporation, Inc., Mikhail Vorotyntsev, Elena Vorotyntsev, Aum Code LLC, and IT Adapter, LLC. The court had entered a revised Case Management Plan and Scheduling Order setting October 6, 2020 as the deadline for completing fact discovery. On September 25, 2020, the court extended that deadline to November 20, 2020. It later granted a limited extension to December 18, 2020, solely to complete Mikhail Vorotyntsev’s deposition; the other deadlines remained in place.

The court had told the parties that the discovery deadlines were firm and that discovery disputes should be brought to the court promptly. It also explained that the schedule could be changed only for good cause. At the time fact discovery closed, Mikhail and Elena Vorotyntsev were representing themselves. Their counsel of record, Jeffrey Davis, did not appear for them until December 15, 2020.

On January 4, 2021, more than six weeks after fact discovery closed, the defendants sought a conference concerning a request to compel responses to discovery demands. On January 8, 2021, the court denied the request, finding that the defendants had not shown good cause, had not acted diligently, had waited until after discovery closed, had failed to request an extension on time, and would prejudice the plaintiffs by reopening discovery. Mikhail Vorotyntsev made an oral request for reconsideration at that conference, which the court also denied. He then renewed the motion for reconsideration about a week later.

Legal standards

Under Local Rule 6.3, a motion for reconsideration must identify matters or controlling decisions that the court overlooked. The court described reconsideration as an extraordinary remedy generally limited to an intervening change in controlling law, newly available evidence, a clear error, or the need to prevent manifest injustice.

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16 provides that a scheduling order may be modified only for good cause and with the judge’s consent. The court explained that good cause depends on the moving party’s diligence: the party must show that, despite diligent efforts, the deadline could not reasonably have been met. The court also noted that pro se litigants receive some consideration but are still expected to make efforts to follow court procedures.

Court’s analysis

The court rejected the argument that the disputed discovery issues first arose at Gary Tatintsian’s deposition. Even accepting that assertion, the court found that waiting six weeks after the close of discovery to seek court intervention showed a lack of diligence. The court also pointed to Mikhail Vorotyntsev’s statement that the plaintiffs had failed to comply with discovery requests served years earlier, which indicated that the issues existed before the discovery deadline.

The court further held that advice from counsel for Shoplink, Aum Code, and IT Adapter could not excuse Mikhail Vorotyntsev’s failure to act. He had represented himself through the discovery period, had attended the conference where the court explained the importance of the deadlines, and had been told to raise discovery disputes promptly. His pro se status did not eliminate the expectation that he follow the court’s procedural rules.

Disposition

The court denied Mikhail Vorotyntsev’s motion for reconsideration. It again found that the defendants had not shown good cause to modify the Case Management Plan and Scheduling Order and declined to reopen fact discovery. The clerk was directed to mail the order to Mikhail and Elena Vorotyntsev by first-class and certified mail.