Mahulawde v. Fashion Institute of Technology
- Sarah Cave
- 1:21-cv-03878
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
In Mahulawde v. Fashion Institute of Technology, Judge Cave denied Defendants’ request for additional electronic discovery.
The ruling affects Defendants’ effort to obtain additional electronic discovery from Plaintiff. That request was denied, although Defendants may question Plaintiff about the later-produced materials during the continued deposition.
What happened
In Mahulawde v. Fashion Institute of Technology, fact discovery had closed, and an earlier order allowed only a limited continued deposition concerning materials Plaintiff produced late and their contents. Defendants later asked the court to allow additional electronic discovery protocols and search terms.
Defendants said the additional discovery was needed because Plaintiff had made late disclosures. Plaintiff opposed the request, arguing that it would improperly reopen fact discovery and require a broad, costly search. The opinion describes the late materials as medical records, a Facebook post, and two videos.
Judge Cave denied the Request for lack of good cause. She ruled that the earlier order did not authorize reopening additional fact discovery and that Defendants’ proposed protocols and search terms were unrelated to the late-produced materials. Defendants may ask Plaintiff about those materials during the continued deposition.
The detailed version
- Mahulawde v. Fashion Institute of Technology · No. 1:21-cv-03878
- Sarah Cave
- Jan. 24, 2024
Background
Fact discovery closed on June 30, 2023. After Plaintiff’s former counsel produced an audio recording, a video compilation, and 2022 medical records at the end of the discovery period, Defendants asked the Court to bar Plaintiff from relying on those materials. The Court denied that request but allowed Defendants to reopen Plaintiff’s deposition for up to three hours. The continued deposition was limited to questions about how Plaintiff gathered and produced those materials and about their contents. The Court also required supplemental disclosures and production responses, but did not authorize any other fact discovery.
The parties later received additional time to complete the continued deposition while discussing electronic-stored-information protocols and search terms. After Plaintiff’s former counsel withdrew and new counsel appeared, the Court set a schedule requiring the continued deposition to be completed by March 15, 2024.
The Request
Defendants asked the Court to intervene in disputes about electronic discovery. They said Plaintiff had made further late disclosures after the earlier order and that additional electronic-stored-information production was necessary to comply with that order. Plaintiff opposed the request, characterizing it as an attempt to reopen fact discovery and require a disproportionately broad and expensive search. The later-produced materials included medical records from the New York City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene, a Facebook post, and two videos.
Court’s reasoning
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16(b)(4), a court-ordered discovery schedule may be changed only for good cause and with the judge’s consent. The Court explained that good cause depends on the moving party’s diligence.
The Court found no good cause. It held that fact discovery had closed and that the earlier order allowed only the continued deposition, not additional fact discovery. Therefore, Defendants’ argument that further electronic discovery was needed to comply with that order was unpersuasive. The Court also stated that, even if good cause had been shown, Defendants’ proposed electronic-discovery protocols and search terms were unrelated to the materials produced in June 2023 or later.
Disposition
The Court DENIED Defendants’ Request. It stated that Defendants may ask Plaintiff questions about the substance of the later-produced materials during the continued deposition. The Clerk of Court was directed to close ECF No. 96.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.