Colon v. MSMC Residential Realty LLC
- Paul Engelmayer
- 1:19-cv-01197
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
In Colon v. MSMC Residential Realty, Judge Engelmayer denied a schedule extension and ordered plaintiffs to explain their late discovery disclosures.
The order directly affected the plaintiffs' attempt to add late-produced discovery and the defendants' requested extension of the summary-judgment briefing schedule. It required the plaintiffs to provide an explanation by April 21, 2021, while leaving the ultimate preclusion question unresolved in this order.
What happened
Colon et al. v. MSMC Residential Realty LLC et al. concerns a premises-liability and claimed wrongful-death lawsuit. The defendants said fact discovery had ended and that plaintiffs later disclosed records from new sources, including the Social Security Administration, Mount Sinai Hospital, and Corvel Corporation.
The defendants asked for a protective order, which would limit or prevent use of the late-produced records, and requested more time to file their planned summary-judgment motion. Plaintiffs said the disclosures were proper updates under the federal discovery rules and that defendants could not reject them.
Judge Paul A. Engelmayer denied the request to change the summary-judgment briefing schedule and directed plaintiffs to respond by April 21, 2021, explaining why the added discovery should not be barred because it was produced after fact discovery ended. The order did not itself decide whether the records would be barred or enter the requested protective order.
The detailed version
- Colon v. MSMC Residential Realty LLC · No. 1:19-cv-01197
- Paul Engelmayer
- Apr. 19, 2021
Background
The opinion text consists primarily of a letter from defendants MSMC Residential Realty LLC and Rose Associates Inc., through their counsel, concerning discovery in a pending premises-liability and claimed wrongful-death case. The letter states that the court had set deadlines for fact discovery, expert reports, and a planned summary-judgment motion. It says fact discovery had ended and that, after a March 15, 2021 pre-motion conference concerning the anticipated summary-judgment motion, plaintiffs requested additional employment records and served supplemental disclosures on April 15 and April 16, 2021.
According to defendants, the supplemental disclosures included previously unseen records from the Social Security Administration and Mount Sinai Hospital, followed by records from Corvel Corporation containing updated lien information. Defendants characterized the disclosures as new discovery produced after the fact-discovery period and argued that the late production prejudiced their preparation for the anticipated motion. Plaintiffs' stated position was that the disclosures were proper under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(e) and that defendants could not reject them.
Requests
Defendants asked the court to issue a protective order under Rule 26(c). A protective order is an order limiting or preventing discovery or the use of discovered material to protect against burdens such as undue expense or unfairness. Defendants sought to preclude the records disclosed on April 15 and April 16 from use in motion practice and at trial, prevent further discovery disclosures, and extend their deadline for filing the summary-judgment motion until two weeks after the court ruled on the protective-order request.
Court's Action
Judge Paul A. Engelmayer (1) denied the request to modify the summary-judgment briefing schedule set on March 15, 2021, and (2) directed plaintiffs to respond by April 21, 2021, explaining why the discovery they sought to add to the record should not be precluded because it was produced after the fact-discovery period. The text does not state that the court granted or denied the requested protective order, ruled on whether the records would ultimately be admitted, or decided the anticipated summary-judgment motion.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.