Mikhaylova v. Bloomingdales, Inc.
- George Daniels
- 1:19-cv-08927
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
In Mikhaylova v. Bloomingdales, Judge Cave denied reconsideration of a discovery-extension ruling and deemed fact discovery closed.
Kristina Mikhaylova, who sought reconsideration and another discovery extension, and defendants Bloomingdale’s Inc. and Christopher Castellani, who opposed the request.
What happened
In Mikhaylova v. Bloomingdales, Kristina Mikhaylova asked the court to reconsider its earlier decision refusing to extend the deadline for exchanging outstanding discovery. The defendants opposed her request.
Mikhaylova repeated arguments that the defendants had not properly responded to her requests, had failed to update earlier responses, and that a deposition reporter had been unavailable. The court found these arguments had already been made and rejected, and that she had not shown a legal change, new evidence, clear error, or extraordinary circumstances.
Judge Sarah L. Cave denied the reconsideration motion. The court noted that it had already granted seven extensions and ruled that fact discovery was closed as of December 14, 2022.
The detailed version
- Mikhaylova v. Bloomingdales, Inc. · No. 1:19-cv-08927
- George Daniels
- Dec. 29, 2022
Background
On December 19, 2022, the Court partially denied Kristina Mikhaylova’s December 14 letter-motion seeking an extension to exchange any outstanding discovery productions. On December 21, Mikhaylova moved for reconsideration. Bloomingdale’s Inc. and Christopher Castellani opposed the motion.
Legal standard
The court applied Local Civil Rule 6.3 and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b), which govern requests to reconsider or obtain relief from a prior order. Reconsideration is an extraordinary remedy generally available only when the court overlooked controlling law or important information, or when exceptional circumstances exist. It is not an opportunity to repeat arguments already rejected or raise arguments that could have been made earlier.
Court’s reasoning
Mikhaylova offered three reasons for reconsideration: that the defendants had not properly answered her initial requests; that they had violated Rule 26 by failing to supplement or correct earlier responses; and that the court reporter for Denis Diaz’s deposition had been unavailable until December 13, 2022. The court found that these were the same arguments Mikhaylova had made in her earlier letter-motion and that the court had already rejected them. The court also found that she had not shown an intervening change in controlling law, newly available evidence, clear error, manifest injustice, or other extraordinary circumstances.
The court noted that it had granted Mikhaylova seven earlier extensions of the fact-discovery deadline and had warned that no further extensions would be granted absent extraordinary circumstances. It therefore found no basis to reconsider its refusal to extend fact discovery and deemed fact discovery closed as of December 14, 2022.
Disposition
Judge Sarah L. Cave denied the letter-motion for reconsideration. The Clerk was directed to close the motion at ECF No. 90.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.