136 Field Point Circle Holding Company, LLC v. Razinski
- Rearden
- 1:21-cv-11076
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 5
In 136 Field Point Circle Holding Company v. Razinski, Judge Rearden closed discovery and ordered a proposed pretrial briefing schedule.
The ruling affects Plaintiff 136 Field Point Circle Holding Company, LLC and Defendants Alexander Razinski, Tanya Razinski, and Invar International Holdings, Inc. Discovery is closed for the case, and all parties must confer about a schedule for briefing pretrial applications.
What happened
In 136 Field Point Circle Holding Company, LLC v. Alexander Razinski et al., the court addressed the parties’ stalled progress in a breach-of-contract case concerning property at 136 Field Circle in Greenwich, Connecticut. Discovery deadlines had expired, and the defendants had repeatedly said they intended to seek court action over unresolved discovery issues but never filed that request.
The court concluded that Alexander and Tanya Razinski had not shown the diligence and good reason required to change the discovery schedule. They had not asked to extend the deadlines before they expired, had substantial time to pursue discovery, and had not filed a motion to compel.
Judge Jennifer H. Rearden ruled that discovery is closed and ordered the parties to confer and jointly propose a schedule for briefing pretrial applications by January 26, 2024.
The detailed version
- 136 Field Point Circle Holding Company, LLC v. Razinski · No. 1:21-cv-11076
- Rearden
- Jan. 17, 2024
Background
This breach-of-contract action concerns property at 136 Field Circle in Greenwich, Connecticut. The case was filed on December 27, 2021, and was reassigned to Judge Jennifer H. Rearden in 2023. Defendants answered the complaint in June 2022.
A case management plan and scheduling order required fact discovery to be completed by February 1, 2023, and all discovery to be completed by March 15, 2023. The order stated that its deadlines could be changed only by further court order and for good cause, meaning a legally sufficient reason supported by the circumstances.
The case was stayed at several points while Defendant Invar International Holdings, Inc. searched for required counsel. The court lifted the stay on June 28, 2023. In a later joint status letter, Plaintiff stated that discovery was complete and that no expert discovery was needed. Defendants said they were not satisfied with Plaintiff’s responses to certain discovery requests and intended to file a letter-motion to compel, but no such motion was filed.
Discussion
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16(b)(4) allows a scheduling order to be changed only for good cause and with the judge’s consent. The court explained that good cause depends on the diligence of the party seeking the change. A party seeking to reopen discovery must show why the deadlines could not reasonably have been met despite diligent efforts.
The court found that Alexander and Tanya Razinski were required to follow the scheduling order and had never asked to modify it or extend its deadlines. They had approximately four months to complete fact discovery and more than five months to complete all discovery. They were aware of the claimed discovery problem before discovery closed and repeatedly stated that they intended to file a motion, but they did not do so even after the court lifted the stay.
The court therefore found that the Razinski Defendants had not demonstrated good cause to modify the case management plan and scheduling order.
Ruling
The court ordered that discovery in the case is closed. It also ordered the parties to confer and propose, by joint letter and on or before January 26, 2024, a briefing schedule for the pretrial applications referenced during an earlier conference. Judge Jennifer H. Rearden did not rule on the underlying breach-of-contract claims in this opinion.
Read the full 5-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.