United States v. Buff
- George Daniels
- 1:19-cv-05549
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In United States v. Buff, Judge Daniels denied Carolyn Buff’s reconsideration motion as untimely and meritless regarding a nine-day discovery extension.
Carolyn Buff and the United States; the ruling left the nine-day extension of the discovery deadline in effect.
What happened
In United States v. Buff, the United States sued Carolyn Buff to collect unpaid civil penalties for alleged Bank Secrecy Act violations. Buff, who was representing herself, challenged a scheduling order that extended the discovery deadline by nine days, from October 12 to October 21, 2022.
Buff argued that the United States had shown no good reason for the extension and that the extension was granted without a request from the United States. The court treated her filing as a motion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60 and concluded that it was filed too late. The court also found that her arguments did not show a clear error, new facts, or another basis for reconsideration.
The court denied Buff’s motion for reconsideration and directed the clerk to close the motion. Judge George B. Daniels also explained that courts have broad authority to manage discovery before trial.
The detailed version
- United States v. Buff · No. 1:19-cv-05549
- George Daniels
- Oct. 19, 2022
Background
The United States brought this action against Carolyn Buff to collect unpaid civil penalties assessed for violations of the Bank Secrecy Act. Buff was representing herself. Magistrate Judge Kevin N. Fox had previously set October 12, 2022, as the discovery deadline. On September 27, 2022, Magistrate Judge Jennifer E. Willis issued another scheduling order that extended the discovery deadline by nine days, to October 21, 2022, and set other deadlines.
Motion and Arguments
Buff moved for reconsideration of Magistrate Judge Willis’s September 27 scheduling order. She argued that the United States had not shown good cause for extending discovery and that the extension was granted without a request from the United States.
Court’s Analysis
Because Buff did not identify the procedural rule supporting her motion, the court considered it under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60. That rule requires a motion seeking relief from an order to be filed within a reasonable time. The court held that, in the Southern District of New York, the applicable reasonable time for reconsideration was 14 days under Local Civil Rule 6.3.
The September 27 order was followed by Buff’s service of the motion on October 14, 2022—17 days later. The court therefore found the motion untimely.
The court also held that the motion lacked merit. Reconsideration is generally available only when a party identifies a change in controlling law, new evidence, a clear error, or a need to prevent serious unfairness. The court found that Buff did not identify a change in controlling law, show a clear error, or present additional facts challenging the nine-day extension. It further explained that district courts have broad discretion to manage discovery before trial.
Disposition
The court denied Defendant’s Motion for Reconsideration, ECF No. 122, and directed the clerk to close the motion. The opinion did not decide the underlying dispute over the civil penalties.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.