Doe v. State University of New York Purchase College
- Kenneth Karas
- 7:21-cv-08417
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 5
In John Doe v. State University of New York Purchase College, Judge Karas denied reconsideration because Doe offered no qualifying new law, evidence, or clear error.
The ruling leaves in place the denial of John Doe’s request for additional time to complete expert discovery and affects the ongoing litigation between Doe and State University of New York Purchase College.
What happened
John Doe sued State University of New York Purchase College under Title IX, while his state-law claims had already been dismissed. The court previously denied Doe’s request to extend expert discovery after setting deadlines and warning that there would be no more extensions.
Doe asked the court to reconsider that denial. He argued that the College’s delayed production of a fact witness who became ill and was hospitalized justified more time, and that he was entitled to finish fact discovery before expert discovery. The court said these arguments could have been made earlier.
Judge Kenneth M. Karas denied the motion for reconsideration. He found no intervening change in controlling law, new evidence, overlooked facts, or clear error that would justify changing the earlier ruling.
The detailed version
- Doe v. State University of New York Purchase College · No. 7:21-cv-08417
- Kenneth Karas
- Sept. 13, 2023
Background
John Doe, proceeding under a pseudonym, sued State University of New York Purchase College. He alleged that the College violated Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972. The opinion states that several state-law claims had already been dismissed.
The court’s case-management schedule initially required fact discovery to end on February 10, 2023, and Doe’s expert disclosures to be completed by March 24, 2023. On January 26, 2023, the court extended fact discovery to April 11, 2023, and expert-discovery deadlines to May 23, 2023, for Doe and July 7, 2023, for the College. The order stated that there would be no more discovery extensions.
On July 6, 2023, Doe requested additional time to complete expert discovery. After receiving a response from the College and requesting more detail from Doe, the court denied the request on July 12, 2023, finding that Doe had not provided a compelling justification to reopen expert discovery.
Motion for Reconsideration
Doe moved for reconsideration, which is a request asking the court to revisit an earlier ruling. The court explained that reconsideration is allowed only in limited circumstances, such as an intervening change in controlling law, new evidence, overlooked facts or controlling decisions, clear error, or the need to prevent serious unfairness. It is not a way to repeat an argument or present new arguments that could have been raised earlier.
Doe raised two arguments: first, that the College’s alleged delay in producing its final fact witness, because of the witness’s unexpected illness and hospitalization, justified a corresponding extension of Doe’s expert-discovery deadline; and second, that Doe was entitled to a complete fact-discovery record before obtaining expert discovery.
Ruling
Judge Kenneth M. Karas held that Doe identified no intervening change in controlling law, new evidence, overlooked facts, or clear error. The court also found that Doe’s arguments were based on facts and law available when he made his original extension request. Although Doe had mentioned the delayed witness in that request, the court found that he did not explain why he had failed to raise the arguments presented in the reconsideration motion at that time.
The court therefore denied Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration. The opinion does not state that the court decided the underlying Title IX claim in this order.
Read the full 5-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.