Ceglia v. Zuckerberg et al

Filing 408

DECISION and ORDER. Plaintiff's request to extend the time for filing Plaintiff's expert reports, June 3, 2012, (Doc. No. 391) is DENIED. Plaintiff's alternative request for leave to amend or supplement such reports following deposition of Plaintiffs motion to compel is DISMISSED without prejudice. Signed by Hon. Leslie G. Foschio on 5/31/2012. (SDW)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK PAUL D. CEGLIA, Plaintiff, v. MARK ELLIOT ZUCKERBERG, FACEBOOK, INC., DECISION and ORDER 10-CV-569A(F) Defendants. APPEARANCES: PAUL A. ARGENTIERI, ESQ. Attorney for Plaintiff 188 Main Street Hornell, New York 14843 BOLAND LEGAL, LLC Attorney for Plaintiff DEAN M. BOLAND, of Counsel 18123 Sloane Avenue Lakewood, Ohio 44107 GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER, LLP Attorneys for Defendants ORIN S. SNYDER, ALEXANDER H. SOUTHWELL, THOMAS H. DUPREE, JR., of Counsel 200 Park Avenue, 47th Floor New York, New York 10166-0193 HARRIS BEACH LLP Attorneys for Defendants TERRANCE P. FLYNN, of Counsel Larkin at Exchange 726 Exchange Street, Suite 1000 Buffalo, New York 14210 By papers filed May 29, 2012 (Doc. No. 391), Plaintiff requests the court to extend the timetable for filing Plaintiff’s expert reports, June 3, 2012, established by the court following a hearing on Defendants’ motion to stay discovery (Doc. No. 348), or to allow Plaintiff to amend his expert reports following disposition of Plaintiff’s motion to compel filed May 27, 2012 (Doc. No. 389). Defendants oppose Plaintiff’s request (Defendants’ Opposition to Ceglia’s Motion for Extension of Time (Doc. No. 407) filed May 31, 2012 (“Defendants’ Opposition”)). Based on its review of the reasons stated in Defendants’ Opposition, the court finds, contrary to those asserted by Plaintiff, there are no grounds to warrant any modification of the scheduled due date for filing of Plaintiff’s expert reports. Plaintiff has had ample time to comply with the court’s schedule. Any possible need to supplement Plaintiff’s expert reports can be addressed following disposition of Plaintiff’s motion to compel. CONCLUSION Based on the foregoing, Plaintiff’s request to extend the time for filing Plaintiff’s expert reports, June 3, 2012, (Doc. No. 391) is DENIED. Plaintiff’s alternative request for leave to amend or supplement such reports following deposition of Plaintiff’s motion to compel is DISMISSED without prejudice. SO ORDERED. /s/ Leslie G. Foschio ________________________________ LESLIE G. FOSCHIO UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE Dated: May 31, 2012 Buffalo, New York 2