Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Mar. 2, 2023

Philbert v. New York City Department Of Education

Judge
Rochon
Docket
1:21-cv-03119
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
3
Civil ProcedureDiscovery
In one sentence

In Philbert v. New York City Department of Education, Judge Rochon denied Philbert’s request to extend discovery because she did not show good cause.

Who this affects

Shakema Philbert’s request for additional time to conduct discovery was denied, and discovery closed on March 2, 2023.

What happened

Philbert v. New York City Department of Education involved Plaintiff Shakema Philbert’s request for more time to complete discovery, the process of gathering information and evidence before trial. Philbert asked for additional time to depose four fact witnesses.

The court said Philbert’s request did not follow the court’s rules and that she had not shown enough diligence or a sufficient reason for another extension. The court noted that it had already extended the discovery deadlines twice and had warned that another extension was unlikely.

Judge Jennifer L. Rochon denied Philbert’s request. The court ordered that discovery close on March 2, 2023.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
Philbert v. New York City Department Of Education · No. 1:21-cv-03119
Judge
Rochon
Date
Mar. 2, 2023

Background

On March 1, 2023, Shakema Philbert submitted a letter asking for another extension of the discovery deadlines. New York City Department of Education opposed the request. Philbert sought more time to depose four fact witnesses whom she said were employees of the Department of Education.

The court stated that its Individual Rule 1.F required an extension request to identify prior extension requests, explain whether they were granted or denied, and state whether the opposing party consented. Philbert’s letter did not provide that information. She also did not contact the Department of Education to seek its consent or propose a joint revised discovery schedule before filing the request.

Court’s analysis

The court applied Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16(b)(4), which provides that a scheduling order may be changed only for good cause and with the judge’s consent. The court explained that the good-cause inquiry mainly focuses on whether the party seeking the change acted diligently and on the reasons offered for changing the schedule.

The court found that Philbert had not shown good cause. The case had been pending since April 2021, and the court had already extended the discovery deadlines on December 2, 2022, after it appeared that the parties had not completed document production, depositions, or other discovery. On January 30, 2023, the court granted what it described as one final extension and directed the parties to complete discovery before March 2, 2023.

The court found that Philbert did not adequately explain what efforts she had made to depose the four witnesses during the previously extended deadlines. The Department of Education stated that Philbert first requested dates for two depositions on February 21, 2023—six business days before discovery closed—and first requested dates for the other two on February 27, 2023. It also stated that Philbert produced her paper discovery on February 24, 2023. The court concluded that Philbert had not diligently pursued the depositions before the deadline.

Disposition

Judge Jennifer L. Rochon denied Philbert’s request to extend the discovery deadlines. The order states that discovery closes on March 2, 2023.

The authoritative version

Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.