United Realty Advisors, LP v. Verschleiser
- John Koeltl
- 1:14-cv-05903
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
In United Realty Advisors v. Verschleiser, Judge Friedman denied reconsideration of an order refusing to reopen discovery.
Defendant Eli Verschleiser’s ability to obtain additional pretrial discovery was affected. The discovery deadline remained closed, although the court allowed him to raise related concerns at trial; the motion for reconsideration was denied.
What happened
In United Realty Advisors, LP v. Eli Verschleiser, the court considered Verschleiser’s request to reconsider an earlier order denying additional discovery. The court had said the case was ready for trial and discovery could not be reopened at that late stage.
Verschleiser argued that his request was narrow, that denying it could prevent him from litigating fairly, and that the plaintiffs would not be harmed by granting it. The plaintiffs opposed the request. The court noted that the motion was filed 91 days after the earlier order, even though the local rule generally requires reconsideration motions within 14 days.
Judge Bernard A. Friedman denied the motion for reconsideration. He concluded that Verschleiser had not shown a qualifying mistake, new evidence, fraud, change in controlling law, or other exceptional circumstance, and was attempting to relitigate an issue already decided. The court said Verschleiser could raise his concerns at trial, which was scheduled for June 16, 2022.
The detailed version
- United Realty Advisors, LP v. Verschleiser · No. 1:14-cv-05903
- John Koeltl
- Apr. 22, 2022
Background
Defendant Eli Verschleiser moved for reconsideration of the court’s January 7, 2022, order denying his request for additional discovery. Verschleiser had asserted that files and data were deleted from plaintiff Jacob Frydman’s equipment in 2016 while files and data were being moved to a new server. He argued that the missing materials were relevant and that the plaintiffs had not preserved or produced them.
The earlier order declined to reopen discovery because the lawsuit had been pending for more than seven years, the discovery deadline had passed long before, and the case was ready for trial. The court stated that Verschleiser could raise his concerns at trial and that it could order relief or sanctions if a party had failed to provide required discovery.
Motion for Reconsideration
Verschleiser argued that his request to reopen discovery was limited, that denying the requested discovery could impair his ability to litigate fairly, and that the plaintiffs would not be prejudiced if the court granted relief. The plaintiffs opposed the motion.
The court applied Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b), which allows relief from a final order on specified grounds, including mistake, newly discovered evidence, fraud or misconduct, a void judgment, satisfaction or reversal of the judgment, or another reason justifying relief. The court also applied Southern District of New York Local Rule 6.3, which generally requires a motion for reconsideration to be served within 14 days after the original decision. Reconsideration is subject to a strict standard and is generally not available merely to relitigate an issue already decided.
Ruling
Judge Bernard A. Friedman denied Verschleiser’s motion for reconsideration. The motion was filed 91 days after the order denying additional discovery. The court found that Verschleiser had not identified a mistake, newly discovered evidence, fraud, an intervening change in controlling law, or another exceptional circumstance supporting relief. The court also found that he had not provided details about the nature or relevance of the evidence sought and was attempting to relitigate the previously decided discovery issue.
The court further noted that the discovery deadline had passed years earlier and that the case was ready for trial. An amended trial notice had set trial for June 16, 2022. The court stated that Verschleiser could raise his concerns at trial and would take appropriate action then. The order therefore denied the motion for reconsideration.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.