Rega v. New York Proton Center
- John Cronan
- 1:22-cv-08407
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Rega v. New York Proton Center, Judge Parker set case deadlines and discovery rules without deciding the claims.
The parties and their counsel in Rega v. New York Proton Center, including John Rega and the defendants named in the caption, were required to follow the deadlines and discovery procedures.
What happened
In Rega v. New York Proton Center, the parties appeared for an initial case-management conference on February 14, 2023. The court entered a schedule under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16.
The order allowed the parties to amend their pleadings and add parties until April 7, 2023. It set July 1, 2023, as the deadline for fact discovery and depositions, limited each side to seven depositions, and set August 15, 2024, as the deadline for expert discovery.
Judge Katharine H. Parker also instructed the parties to follow the court’s procedures for discovery disputes and the federal rules governing discovery. The parties had to file a joint status letter by March 16, 2023, about mediation and discovery. The order did not decide the underlying claims.
The detailed version
- Rega v. New York Proton Center · No. 1:22-cv-08407
- John Cronan
- Feb. 14, 2023
Nature of the order
This was a scheduling order entered after an initial case-management conference. It set deadlines and requirements for the litigation; it did not resolve the parties’ underlying claims.
Deadlines and case management
The parties could amend their pleadings and join additional parties until April 7, 2023. After that date, further amendments or joinder required good cause.
The deadline to complete fact discovery was July 1, 2023. The deadline to complete depositions was also July 1, 2023, and depositions were limited to seven per side. Expert discovery had to be completed by August 15, 2024.
Discovery requirements
The court directed the parties to follow its individual procedures for discovery disputes. Counsel also had to comply with Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 1 and 26(b)(1), which address the conduct and scope of discovery. The order reminded counsel to understand their duties under Rules 34 and 26(g), including discussing ways to avoid overly broad or insufficiently specific document requests and responses.
The court stated that requests for all documents on a broad topic are presumptively improper. It also stated that an objection that does not adequately explain its grounds may be forfeited, citing decisions from other courts. The order quoted authority stating that discovery responses that fail to state objections specifically and indicate whether materials are being withheld may waive objections other than privilege objections.
Status report
The parties were ordered to file a joint status letter by March 16, 2023, updating the court about mediation and discovery.
Disposition
Judge Katharine H. Parker entered the scheduling order. The opinion contains no ruling on the merits of the claims or defenses.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.