Lebenns v. Frost Productions
- Barbara Moses
- 1:21-cv-11155
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 5
In Lebenns v. Frost Productions, Judge Rochon overruled Lebenns’s untimely objections to closing discovery.
Andrew Lebenns and the defendants—Frost Productions, Frost Lighting Inc., John Condon, and Peter Markowitz—were affected because the court left discovery closed and overruled Lebenns’s objections.
What happened
Andrew Lebenns sued Frost Productions, Frost Lighting Inc., John Condon, and Peter Markowitz under federal and state law. He challenged a magistrate judge’s decision refusing to reconsider an earlier order that closed discovery.
Judge Willis’s deadline for objections was November 27, 2023, but Lebenns filed his objections on November 29. The district court therefore treated them as untimely. Discovery remained closed, and the parties were ordered to attend a post-discovery conference.
Judge Jennifer L. Rochon overruled the objections. She also ruled that, even if the objections had been timely, the magistrate judge’s decision was not clearly wrong or contrary to law.
The detailed version
- Lebenns v. Frost Productions · No. 1:21-cv-11155
- Barbara Moses
- Dec. 14, 2023
Background
Andrew Lebenns brought federal- and state-law claims against his former employers, Frost Productions and Frost Lighting Inc., and against John Condon and Peter Markowitz. The opinion addresses only Lebenns’s objections to a November 9, 2023 order by Magistrate Judge Willis.
After several discovery disputes, Magistrate Judge Willis set deadlines for fact and expert discovery. She later declined to reopen fact discovery but temporarily extended discovery for a forensic expert to examine electronic devices for emails and text messages. After further briefing, she found that no additional document production was necessary and declined to reopen discovery. Lebenns then objected to that decision.
Analysis
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(a), a party has 14 days after being served with a magistrate judge’s order on a non-final matter to object. The district court may change the order only if it is clearly erroneous or contrary to law.
Judge Rochon calculated that Lebenns’s deadline was November 27, 2023. Because he filed his objections on November 29, the court ruled that they were untimely and denied the Rule 72(a) objection on that basis.
The court also considered the objection alternatively on its merits. It held that Magistrate Judge Willis did not clearly err or act contrary to law by denying reconsideration and refusing to reopen discovery. The court explained that reconsideration is not a way to repeat earlier arguments or obtain another chance to litigate an issue, and that Lebenns had not identified a change in controlling law, new evidence, or clear error.
Ruling and effect
The court overruled Lebenns’s objections to the November order and directed the parties to appear for a post-discovery conference on January 23, 2024. It also directed the Clerk of Court to terminate the motion at ECF No. 128. Discovery was therefore closed under the order addressed in this opinion.
Read the full 5-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.