Bensmaine v. City of New York
- Rochon
- 1:21-cv-04816
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Bensmaine v. City of New York, Judge Rochon denied a discovery stay and granted in part the plaintiff’s request for more time.
The order affected Christophe Bensmaine and the defendants, including the City of New York: discovery was not stayed, and the plaintiff received additional time to respond to the defendants’ motion for judgment on the pleadings.
What happened
In Bensmaine v. City of New York, the defendants sought to stay discovery while their motion for judgment on the pleadings was pending. A previous request for the same stay had been denied by Judge Lewis J. Liman.
Judge Rochon said the defendants’ renewed request came more than two months after the earlier ruling and was untimely under the court’s reconsideration rule. She also found that the defendants had not identified overlooked law or facts that could change the earlier decision.
Judge Jennifer L. Rochon denied the request to stay discovery and denied the reconsideration motion. She granted in part Christophe Bensmaine’s request for more time to respond to the defendants’ motion, setting deadlines of November 15, 2022, for his response and December 15, 2022, for the defendants’ reply.
The detailed version
- Bensmaine v. City of New York · No. 1:21-cv-04816
- Rochon
- Oct. 19, 2022
Background
The court considered the plaintiff’s motion and letters from the parties. The defendants sought to stay discovery until the court resolved their motion for judgment on the pleadings. Judge Lewis J. Liman had previously denied a request for that stay on August 15, 2022, noting that the defendants had delayed responding to the plaintiff’s claim.
Discovery Stay and Reconsideration
Judge Rochon denied the defendants’ request to stay discovery. She explained that Local Civil Rule 6.3 requires a motion for reconsideration to be served within 14 days after the court’s decision on the original motion. More than two months had passed since Judge Liman’s ruling. The court further stated that, even if the request had been timely, the defendants had not identified controlling decisions, facts, or other matters that the court had overlooked and that could reasonably change the earlier result. The motion was therefore denied.
Extension of Time and Further Proceedings
The court granted in part the plaintiff’s request for an extension of time to respond to the defendants’ motion for judgment on the pleadings. The plaintiff was required to respond by November 15, 2022, and the defendants were required to reply by December 15, 2022. The court also stated that the case would be referred by separate order to the assigned magistrate judge for general pretrial oversight, including consideration of the proposed case-management plan. Judge Jennifer L. Rochon signed the order.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.