Pedraza v. Manhattan Monster Inc.
- Vyskocil
- 1:23-cv-02596
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Pedraza v. Manhattan Monster Inc., Judge Vyskocil granted in part and denied in part the request to extend discovery.
The plaintiff, the non-defaulting defendants, Defendant Luis Gomez, and the attorneys and witnesses involved in discovery were affected by the adjusted deadlines and warning about possible sanctions.
What happened
In Pedraza v. Manhattan Monster Inc., the parties reported that mediation did not resolve the case and described their ongoing discovery work. A certificate of default had been issued against Luis Gomez, but the plaintiff planned to seek a judgment against him after the claims against the other defendants ended.
The parties jointly asked to extend the discovery deadline from November 15 to December 31, 2023. They also disagreed about whether the plaintiff needed court permission or a subpoena to question two non-party witnesses, Dan Tobey and Ricardo Rivera.
Judge Mary Kay Vyskocil granted in part and denied in part the extension request. She moved the discovery deadline to December 11, 2023 and moved the status conference to December 12, 2023, warning that violations could lead to sanctions.
The detailed version
- Pedraza v. Manhattan Monster Inc. · No. 1:23-cv-02596
- Vyskocil
- Oct. 26, 2023
Background
The parties submitted a joint status-update letter that also requested more time for discovery, the pretrial process in which parties exchange information and question witnesses. They reported that a mediation on October 24, 2023 did not settle the matter.
The letter stated that a certificate of default had been issued against Defendant Luis Gomez. Because the other defendants had not defaulted, the plaintiff said it would wait to seek a default judgment against Gomez until the case involving the non-defaulting defendants concluded.
The parties reported that defendants had provided discovery responses and their own discovery requests. They had agreed to dates for a deposition of an organizational representative under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30(b)(6) and for the plaintiff’s deposition. The plaintiff also sought to depose Dan Tobey and Ricardo Rivera, whom defendants had identified as non-party witnesses. The parties disagreed about whether court permission or a subpoena was required for those depositions.
Requested Extension
The parties jointly requested that the discovery deadline be extended from November 15, 2023, to December 31, 2023. The letter stated that this would be the third extension and that the parties were working to address discovery issues and schedule depositions.
Ruling
The court stated that the requested extension was excessive, particularly because it had already granted multiple extensions. The request was granted in part and denied in part. The court adjourned—that is, moved—the discovery deadline to December 11, 2023. It also adjourned the December 6, 2023 status conference to December 12, 2023, at 12:30 p.m.
Judge Mary Kay Vyskocil warned that failure to meet discovery obligations or follow a court order, local rule, or the judge’s individual practice rules could result in sanctions, including dismissal of the action, preclusion of claims, evidence, or defenses, monetary penalties, or other sanctions against counsel. The order does not state a ruling on the parties’ separate disagreement about permission to depose the two non-party witnesses.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.