Antipova v. CareMount Medical P.C.

Background

Yelena Antipova, a licensed attorney proceeding without a lawyer, filed objections under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(a) to two non-dispositive pretrial rulings by Magistrate Judge Barbara C. Moses. Rule 72(a) permits a district judge to modify or set aside a magistrate judge’s non-dispositive order if it is clearly erroneous or contrary to law. The district court explained that the party challenging the ruling has a heavy burden.

Objection to the expert-report deadline

Antipova objected to Judge Moses’s decision not to grant an indefinite extension or an extension through December 1, 2025, for serving expert reports. Judge Moses had granted a 60-day extension, moving the deadline to December 5, 2023. Antipova argued that Judge Moses had improperly applied the requirement of “good cause” for changing a scheduling order, and she relied on her chemotherapy schedule and her hope of having more precise information about her survivability by 2025.

Judge Cronan found no error in Judge Moses’s analysis. The court noted that Judge Moses had already extended the expert-report deadline three times, partly because of Antipova’s medical challenges. Judge Cronan also concluded that uncertainty and the need for additional time to review existing reports did not justify delaying the reports indefinitely. The court explained that the relevant inquiry focused on the diligence of the party seeking the extension, not on how long other medical-malpractice cases had remained pending.

Objection to reopening discovery

Antipova also objected to Judge Moses’s refusal to reopen discovery concerning NYU Langone. Judge Moses had denied that request because it repeated an earlier unsuccessful request to reopen discovery, whose denial Antipova had not challenged. Antipova argued that she had an excusable reason for missing the deadline, that the defendants had not shown prejudice, and that she had not acted improperly or delayed the case.

Judge Cronan found that Antipova’s brief list of some relevant factors did not show that Judge Moses had made a clear error. The court also concluded that Antipova had not meaningfully addressed the concerns identified in Judge Moses’s ruling.

Ruling

Judge Cronan sustained Judge Moses’s rulings on both issues and overruled Antipova’s objections. The order addressed the pretrial scheduling and discovery disputes and did not decide the underlying claims.