Tatis v. City Of New York
- Katherine Failla
- 1:20-cv-09831
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Tatis v. City of New York, Judge Failla denied Tatis’s motion to compel discovery because it was untimely and no further extension was warranted.
Tatis and the defendants in the case, including the City of New York, were affected by the denial of the motion to compel and the refusal to extend discovery again.
What happened
In Tatis v. City of New York, Tatis asked the court to require the defendants to respond to additional document requests. The requests were served on May 25, 2022, shortly before fact discovery closed.
The court denied the motion. It said the prior extension allowed the parties to exchange electronic information and finish depositions, not to serve new document requests. The court also noted that Tatis waited until after discovery closed to seek relief and had not explained the delay.
Judge Katherine Polk Failla found that Tatis had not shown that another discovery extension was warranted. She directed the parties to participate in settlement discussions and terminated the motion from the docket.
The detailed version
- Tatis v. City Of New York · No. 1:20-cv-09831
- Katherine Failla
- June 17, 2022
Background
Tatis filed a motion to compel, asking the court to require the defendants to respond to supplemental document requests served on May 25, 2022. The defendants opposed the motion, arguing that the requests were untimely because fact discovery closed on June 3, 2022, and that Tatis filed the motion after the discovery deadline.
The court had previously granted a final extension so the parties could exchange electronically stored information and complete remaining depositions. The court had warned that no further discovery extensions would be granted under any circumstances.
Ruling
The court denied Tatis’s motion to compel. It explained that the prior extension did not authorize Tatis to serve additional document requests. The court also found that Tatis had not explained why he waited until one week before discovery closed to serve the requests, many of which sought information that could have been requested earlier. Tatis then waited 10 days after discovery closed and after the defendants said they would not produce the requested documents before filing the motion.
The court found that Tatis had not shown that a third extension of the discovery deadlines was warranted. It referred the case to Magistrate Judge James L. Cott for a settlement conference, directed the parties to engage in settlement discussions in good faith, and directed the Clerk of Court to terminate the motion at docket entry 44.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.