Colon v. MSMC Residential Realty LLC
- Paul Engelmayer
- 1:19-cv-01197
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Colon v. MSMC Residential Realty, Judge Engelmayer barred plaintiffs’ late discovery and further discovery without court permission.
The ruling directly affected the plaintiffs’ ability to use the late-disclosed records and seek additional discovery, while granting defendants’ request to restrict that discovery.
What happened
In Colon v. MSMC Residential Realty LLC, fact discovery ended on February 12, 2021, after the court had granted four discovery extensions. The court then set a schedule for the parties’ summary-judgment motions.
After that deadline, the plaintiffs sought records from a non-party and later sent defendants supplemental disclosures involving records defendants had not previously seen. Defendants asked the court to prevent plaintiffs from using those records and from pursuing more late discovery.
Judge Engelmayer granted defendants’ request. He ruled that the records disclosed on April 15 and 16 were too late and barred plaintiffs from seeking any additional discovery without the court’s express permission and a showing of good cause.
The detailed version
- Colon v. MSMC Residential Realty LLC · No. 1:19-cv-01197
- Paul Engelmayer
- May 3, 2021
Background
The court had granted four extensions of the discovery period. Fact discovery closed on February 12, 2021. On March 15, the court held a conference about defendants’ proposed summary-judgment motion and set a briefing schedule, which was to be completed by June 7, 2021. The parties later filed a joint stipulation of facts.
On April 14, plaintiffs asked the court to compel a non-party to produce records under a subpoena served on March 24. The court denied that request because fact discovery had ended and the parties had not previously reported any outstanding discovery issues. On April 15 and 16, plaintiffs sent defendants supplemental responses to initial disclosures concerning records defendants had not previously been shown.
Parties’ Positions
Defendants asked the court to preclude the newly disclosed records from being used at trial and to bar further belated discovery. The opinion states that plaintiffs did not claim the records supplemented an incomplete response to a timely discovery request or corrected a mistake in previously disclosed material. Plaintiffs also did not give a reason for failing to seek or disclose the material during the discovery period.
Ruling
The court granted defendants’ request. It held that the additional material disclosed on April 15 and 16 was precluded as untimely because fact discovery had ended long before. The court also barred plaintiffs from seeking further discovery without the court’s express permission and a showing of good cause. Judge Paul A. Engelmayer based the ruling on the district court’s authority to manage discovery and the plaintiffs’ failure to explain their delay.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.