Rhode-NYC, LLC v. Rhodedeodato Corp.
- Alvin Hellerstein
- 1:22-cv-05185
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 6
In Rhode-NYC v. Rhodedeodato, Judge Hellerstein’s filing presents the parties’ joint request to extend discovery deadlines but states no ruling.
The scheduling of discovery and related proceedings for Rhode-NYC, LLC, Hailey Rhode Bieber, Rhodedeodato Corp., and HRBeauty, LLC.
What happened
Rhode-NYC, LLC v. Rhodedeodato Corp. concerns a joint request by the parties to change the case schedule. They asked for about 60 more days for document production, depositions, fact discovery, expert discovery, and related deadlines.
The parties said electronic evidence, including social-media content and text messages, would take additional time to collect and review. They also cited difficulty scheduling witness depositions before the existing December deadlines and said the extension would allow more time to explore settlement.
The filing does not state that Judge Alvin Hellerstein granted or denied the request. It presents the parties’ motion and proposed schedule, so the provided text does not show the court’s ruling.
The detailed version
- Rhode-NYC, LLC v. Rhodedeodato Corp. · No. 1:22-cv-05185
- Alvin Hellerstein
- Nov. 2, 2022
Nature of the filing
The provided text is a joint motion to modify the scheduling order, not an order stating the court’s disposition. Rhode-NYC, LLC is identified as the plaintiff and counter-defendant. Hailey Rhode Bieber, Rhodedeodato Corp., and HRBeauty, LLC are identified collectively as the defendants and counter-plaintiffs.
Background
The case was filed on June 21, 2022, and the plaintiff also moved for a preliminary injunction. The text states that Judge Schofield denied that motion on July 22, 2022. The parties later participated in mediation without resolving the case. A scheduling order was entered on August 18, 2022, and the case was reassigned to Judge Hellerstein on August 29, 2022. The defendants filed an answer and counterclaims on September 12, 2022, and the plaintiff responded on October 3, 2022.
Requested schedule changes
The parties jointly asked to extend several deadlines by approximately 60 days. Among the requested changes, they sought to move the deadline for producing responsive documents from November 15, 2022, to January 20, 2023; the deadline for serving interrogatories and requests for admission to January 27, 2023; the completion of depositions and fact discovery to March 7, 2023; and the close of expert discovery to April 28, 2023. They also proposed related changes to post-discovery case-management deadlines and cancellation of pre-motion requirements for anticipated dispositive motions under Judge Hellerstein’s individual rules, as reflected in the filing.
Reasons offered
The parties relied on the requirement that a scheduling order may be changed for good cause with the judge’s consent. They said they had pursued discovery diligently but needed more time because electronic evidence—including social-media content and mobile text messages—was complicated to collect and review. They also said the current schedule did not leave enough time to review document production, identify deposition witnesses and exhibits, and complete depositions during a period of limited availability near the holidays. They further stated that the additional time could support settlement discussions.
Disposition
The provided text does not include a ruling by Judge Hellerstein. It does not state that the motion was granted, denied, or granted in part and denied in part. Accordingly, the court’s action on the requested schedule modification is unclear from the provided text.
Read the full 6-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.