Castillo v. ELG Parking Inc

Background

Plaintiffs, former parking lot attendants, sued Defendants under the Fair Labor Standards Act and New York Labor Law, alleging that Defendants failed to pay them properly. Judge Analisa Torres adopted a case-management plan that set a February 4, 2022 discovery deadline. At the parties’ requests, the deadline was extended twice, and Magistrate Judge Katharine H. Parker later granted additional extensions.

Plaintiffs moved twice to compel discovery after Defendants allegedly failed to respond to discovery demands. The parties continued requesting extensions, largely because of Defendants’ failure to participate in discovery on time. On February 28, 2023, the court granted a final extension ending March 20, 2023. The court then reminded the parties that discovery would close on that date and that any motion to compel had to be filed by March 14, 2023. No motion to compel was filed by that deadline.

The motion

Two weeks after discovery closed, Defendants filed a motion seeking to compel Plaintiffs’ deposition testimony. Although Defendants called it a motion to compel, the court analyzed the request as seeking to reopen discovery so that the deposition dispute could be pursued.

A party seeking to reopen discovery must show that the deadlines could not reasonably have been met despite diligent efforts. The court may also consider matters such as the timing of the request, possible prejudice, the moving party’s diligence, whether the need for discovery was foreseeable, and whether the discovery would likely produce relevant evidence.

Ruling

The court denied Defendants’ request to reopen discovery. It found that Defendants had not shown diligence. Discovery had lasted more than a year, nearly a dozen extensions had been granted, and Defendants had not explained why they failed to seek an order compelling depositions by the court’s deadline or before discovery closed. The court also found that Defendants had a fully adequate opportunity to pursue the depositions during the discovery period.

The court further noted that Plaintiffs had tried for months to communicate with Defendants about scheduling depositions, while Defendants’ submission asserted that Plaintiffs had refused to appear and apparently concerned a deposition scheduled unilaterally after discovery ended.

Other direction

Defendants represented that they intended to seek summary judgment. The court reminded them that Judge Torres required pre-motion letters for summary-judgment motions within fourteen days after discovery closed, by April 3, 2023. The court stated that any request to extend that deadline should be directed to Judge Torres. The Clerk was directed to terminate the motion at ECF No. 76.