Trombetta v. Novocin
- Laura Swain
- 1:18-cv-00993
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Trombetta v. Novocin, Magistrate Judge Cave denied late expert reports, kept discovery closed, and set deadlines for summary-judgment and expert motions.
Annamarie Trombetta and the defendants—Norb Novocin, Marie Novocin, Estate Auctions, Inc., and Worthpoint Corporation—were affected by the discovery rulings and the April 7, 2023 motion deadline.
What happened
In Trombetta v. Novocin, Annamarie Trombetta, who represented herself, sent the court a letter about discovery, expert reports, and the case schedule. The court had already ruled that defendants had completed production about two identified emails, and that all fact and expert discovery was closed.
The court confirmed that defendants did not have to produce more information about those emails. It also noted that Trombetta’s revised proposed complaint had been struck because an earlier proposed complaint would be used instead. The court had previously denied her request to reopen fact discovery.
The court denied Trombetta’s request to serve expert reports after the deadlines. Magistrate Judge Sarah L. Cave ordered the parties to file by April 7, 2023, any anticipated motions for summary judgment or to allow or exclude expert testimony. The order did not decide the underlying claims.
The detailed version
- Trombetta v. Novocin · No. 1:18-cv-00993
- Laura Swain
- Mar. 10, 2023
Background
Annamarie Trombetta, proceeding without a lawyer, sent the court a March 8, 2023 letter concerning discovery, expert reports, and the pleadings. The order addressed several earlier rulings and the next steps in the case.
Earlier Orders Confirmed
The court stated that on December 8, 2022, it had found defendants’ production concerning the coding for two identified emails, EAI00058 and EAU00060, complete. The court therefore confirmed that defendants were not required to make further production concerning those emails.
The court also stated that it had struck Trombetta’s revised proposed amended complaint on December 13, 2022. The reason was that the court had already indicated that a previously filed proposed amended complaint would serve as the operative pleading—the complaint governing the case.
The order further noted that on March 7, 2023, the court had denied Trombetta’s request to reopen fact discovery and had deemed all fact and expert discovery closed.
Ruling and Schedule
To the extent Trombetta requested permission to serve expert reports after the deadlines set by the court, the court denied that request. The order did not state that the case or any claim was dismissed.
The court also directed the parties to file, by Friday, April 7, 2023, any anticipated motions for summary judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56 and any motions to allow or exclude a party’s expert testimony under Federal Rule of Evidence 702 and the standards discussed in Daubert v. Merrill Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc. The clerk was directed to mail Trombetta a copy of the order.
Effect of the Order
This was a case-management and discovery order. It resolved the requests addressed in the letter but did not decide which side would prevail on the underlying claims.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.