Emeterio v. A & P Restaurant Corp.
- Katharine Parker
- 1:20-cv-00970
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In Emeterio v. A & P Restaurant, Judge Furman extended depositions, kept most discovery closed, and set a summary-judgment schedule.
The order affected Francisco Emeterio, A & P Restaurant Corp. doing business as Remedy Diner, and the other parties because it set their remaining deposition, discovery, and anticipated summary-judgment deadlines.
What happened
In Emeterio v. A & P Restaurant Corp., the court addressed the parties’ remaining discovery and their anticipated requests for summary judgment. The court allowed additional time for certain depositions and directed the parties to propose a schedule for briefing their expected motions.
The court extended the deadline for the depositions identified in an earlier stipulation to July 1, 2021. By that date, the parties also had to confer and file a joint letter proposing a four-step schedule for the expected motions for summary judgment and any related sanctions motions. Unless the court later ordered otherwise, the plaintiffs’ motions were due August 6, 2021.
Judge Furman ruled that discovery was closed except for the specified depositions because the parties had not shown good cause for a broader extension. The court cited the parties’ general lack of diligence but encouraged them to complete outstanding discovery by July 1 to avoid possible sanctions.
The detailed version
- Emeterio v. A & P Restaurant Corp. · No. 1:20-cv-00970
- Katharine Parker
- June 3, 2021
Background
This order followed a telephone conference concerning remaining discovery and the parties’ anticipated cross-motions for summary judgment. The opinion states that the parties had an earlier court-approved stipulation dated May 5, 2021, which identified depositions that remained to be completed.
Court’s Orders
The court granted the parties an extension until July 1, 2021, to complete those specified depositions. By the same date, the parties had to confer and file a joint letter proposing a four-part briefing schedule for their anticipated cross-motions for summary judgment and any related motions for sanctions. The sequence was to be: the plaintiffs’ motion; the defendants’ opposition and cross-motion in one memorandum; the plaintiffs’ reply and opposition to the cross-motion; and the defendants’ reply.
Unless the court ordered otherwise, the plaintiffs had to file any motion for summary judgment and related sanctions motion by August 6, 2021.
Discovery Deadline
The court ordered that discovery was closed except for the specified depositions. It found that the parties had not shown good cause for a broader extension, citing their general lack of due diligence and the federal rule requiring good cause and the judge’s consent to modify a scheduling order. The court nevertheless encouraged the parties to complete any outstanding discovery by July 1, 2021, to avoid possible sanctions.
Disposition and Significance
This was a case-management and discovery order, not a decision on the merits of the parties’ claims. The court extended the deadline for specified depositions, established requirements for proposing a summary-judgment briefing schedule, set a presumptive filing deadline for the plaintiffs’ motion, and kept the rest of discovery closed.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.