Roche Freedman LLP v. Jason Cyrulnik
- John Koeltl
- 1:21-cv-01746
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
Roche Freedman v. Cyrulnik: Judge Netburn denied Cyrulnik’s request to reconsider an order refusing more discovery because he showed no basis to reopen it.
Cyrulnik’s request for additional discovery was rejected, and all parties were reminded that discovery into the discovery process is disfavored absent a showing of abuse.
What happened
In Roche Freedman LLP v. Jason Cyrulnik, Cyrulnik asked the court to reconsider part of a December 9, 2022 order that denied further discovery into Roche Freedman’s contingency practice. Fact discovery had already closed on September 30, 2022.
The court said reconsideration is available only for a change in controlling law, new evidence, clear error, or a need to prevent serious unfairness. It found that Cyrulnik had shown none of those grounds and noted that he had already questioned at least one litigation funder, the individual counterclaim defendants, and obtained documents about case valuation.
Judge Sarah Netburn denied the motion for reconsideration and also denied Cyrulnik’s request for certification by the Roche Freedman parties. The court reminded the parties that additional discovery into discovery is generally disfavored and said objections to this order or the December 9 order must be filed within 14 days.
The detailed version
- Roche Freedman LLP v. Jason Cyrulnik · No. 1:21-cv-01746
- John Koeltl
- Jan. 3, 2023
Background
Cyrulnik, identified as the defendant and counterclaim plaintiff, moved on December 22, 2022, for reconsideration of part of the court’s December 9, 2022 order. That earlier order denied further discovery into Roche Freedman’s contingency practice. Fact discovery had been closed since September 30, 2022.
Cyrulnik also requested certification by the Roche Freedman parties. The opinion further reminded all parties that “discovery on discovery”—additional discovery into how discovery was conducted—is disfavored unless a party shows abuse.
Legal standard
The court applied the standard for reconsideration under Local Civil Rule 6.3 and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e). Reconsideration generally requires an intervening change in controlling law, newly available evidence, a clear error, or a need to prevent manifest injustice. The court described this as a strict standard and said reconsideration is generally denied unless the moving party identifies controlling decisions or information the court overlooked.
Court’s reasoning
The court was unwilling to reopen discovery at that stage. It found that Cyrulnik had not shown a change in law, new evidence, or clear error. The court stated that if Cyrulnik’s expert was only then recognizing that the record was incomplete, Cyrulnik could have consulted the expert before fact discovery closed. The court also noted that the record suggested Cyrulnik had deposed at least one litigation funder, questioned the individual counterclaim defendants, and obtained documents related to case valuation. On that basis, the court found that Cyrulnik had not been prevented from obtaining discovery on the topic and that denying reconsideration would not create manifest injustice.
Disposition
Judge Sarah Netburn denied Cyrulnik’s motion for reconsideration. The court also denied Cyrulnik’s request for certification by the Roche Freedman parties. Any objections under Rule 72(a) to this order or the December 9 order were required to be filed within 14 days from January 3, 2023. The clerk was requested to terminate the gavel at ECF No. 302.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.