Herbert v. Lynch
- Nelson Roman
- 7:22-cv-06303
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 5
In Herbert v. Lynch, Magistrate Judge Victoria Reznik denied reopening discovery and declined to schedule a settlement conference, ordering pre-settlement calls.
Jeremiah F. Herbert’s ability to pursue additional discovery and obtain a settlement conference was affected; the defendants were protected from the delay and potential prejudice that reopening discovery could cause.
What happened
In Herbert v. Lynch, Jeremiah F. Herbert, who was representing himself and incarcerated, asked the court to issue subpoenas for three depositions after discovery had closed. The court treated his letters as a request to reopen discovery.
The defendants opposed the request, arguing that Herbert had enough time to seek discovery before the September 1, 2023 deadline and had not explained why he waited. They also argued that the requested discovery was unlikely to produce relevant information. Herbert separately asked the court to schedule a settlement conference, but the defendants said they did not intend to negotiate.
The court denied the request to reopen discovery because Herbert did not show good cause, and it declined to schedule a settlement conference at that time. The court said it would hold pre-settlement calls with the parties to assess whether a future conference might be useful. Magistrate Judge Victoria Reznik also directed the clerk to terminate the pending motions.
The detailed version
- Herbert v. Lynch · No. 7:22-cv-06303
- Nelson Roman
- Feb. 14, 2024
Background
Jeremiah F. Herbert, proceeding without a lawyer and incarcerated, submitted two letters seeking subpoenas to require Deputy Torres, Nurse Daniel Whitmore, and Corporal Noble to participate in depositions. Discovery had closed on September 1, 2023, after the court extended the original deadline. Because Herbert’s letters did not expressly ask to reopen discovery, the court interpreted them as making that request.
Herbert also submitted a separate letter asking the court to schedule a settlement conference. The defendants responded that they did not intend to engage in settlement discussions.
Reopening Discovery
The court explained that a discovery deadline may be changed only for good cause, meaning a sufficient reason supported by the circumstances. Courts consider whether the party had an adequate opportunity to conduct discovery, whether the party acted diligently, whether the request is opposed, whether reopening would prejudice the other side, whether additional discovery was foreseeable, whether a trial is imminent, and whether the discovery is likely to produce relevant evidence.
The court found that Herbert had not shown good cause. He had nearly seven months to conduct discovery, did not seek another extension after the deadline was extended, and did not mention the depositions at the parties’ August 16, 2023 conference. He also did not explain why he had not pursued the requested discovery earlier. The court noted that reopening discovery would delay the case and prejudice the defendants because summary-judgment briefing had already been scheduled and had previously been delayed while the court addressed Herbert’s earlier requests for sanctions concerning alleged loss or destruction of evidence.
The court therefore denied Herbert’s construed motion to reopen discovery.
Settlement Conference
The court stated that it could require the defendants to appear at a settlement conference, but could not force them to make an offer or settle the case. Because the defendants did not appear ready to engage in settlement discussions, the court declined to schedule a settlement conference at that time. The court said it would schedule pre-settlement calls with each party to determine whether a future settlement conference might be productive.
Disposition
The clerk was directed to terminate the pending motions at ECF Nos. 99, 101, and 102. The opinion was signed by Magistrate Judge Victoria Reznik.
Read the full 5-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.