Chen v. Lilis 200 West 57th Corp.
- Valerie Caproni
- 1:19-cv-07654
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Chen v. Lilis 200 West 57th Corp., Judge Caproni denied plaintiffs’ reconsideration motion seeking more discovery time because they showed no recognized basis.
The plaintiffs, including Chang Yan Chen and those he sought to represent, were affected by the denial of their request for reconsideration and additional discovery time. The defendants were not granted any relief in this order.
What happened
Chang Yan Chen and other plaintiffs asked the court to reconsider its decision about extending the time for discovery and to extend discovery through August 15, 2022, in Chen v. Lilis 200 West 57th Corp.
The court said the plaintiffs’ account of the discovery delays was inconsistent with the record. It noted that the plaintiffs had rescheduled a deposition, then did not respond to a request to set a new date or confirm another deposition. The plaintiffs also did not provide deposition notices or proposed dates for deposing defendants until the court ordered them to do so shortly before the original deadline, which the court had extended.
The court denied the plaintiffs’ motion for reconsideration and directed the Clerk of Court to close the motion. Judge Valerie E. Caproni found that the plaintiffs had not shown a change in controlling law, new evidence, clear error, or a need to prevent serious unfairness.
The detailed version
- Chen v. Lilis 200 West 57th Corp. · No. 1:19-cv-07654
- Valerie Caproni
- July 7, 2022
Background
Chang Yan Chen, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, moved for reconsideration of the court’s decision concerning the plaintiffs’ request for additional time to complete discovery. The motion sought an order reversing that decision and extending discovery to August 15, 2022.
Court’s analysis
The court explained that reconsideration is available only when the moving party identifies an intervening change in controlling law, newly available evidence, or a need to correct clear error or prevent manifest injustice.
The court rejected the plaintiffs’ representations about why depositions occurred later in the discovery period. It stated that the plaintiffs had rescheduled a deposition at the last minute and then failed to respond to defense counsel’s request to set a new date or confirm an additional deposition. The court also stated that the plaintiffs did not serve deposition notices or propose dates for depositions of defendants until June 10, 2022—three days before the original discovery deadline—and only after the court ordered them to do so. The court had extended the original deadline.
Ruling
The court denied the plaintiffs’ motion for reconsideration because they did not identify a change in controlling law, new evidence, clear error, or a need to prevent manifest injustice. The Clerk of Court was directed to close the open motion at Docket 117.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.