Ayanna v. Dechert LLP

Filing 58

Ch. Magistrate Judge Leo T. Sorokin: ORDER entered denying 55 Motion for Reconsideration (King, Kristin)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS

)
)
)
)
v.
)
)
DECHERT, LLP,
)
Defendant,
)
______________________________)
ARIEL AYANNA,
Plaintiff

CIVIL ACTION
NO. 10-CV-12155-NMG

ORDER ON PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
February 6, 2012
SOROKIN, M.J.
At the Rule 16 conference, the Court established a schedule for discovery. Approximately
half of the allotted discovery period elapsed before the Plaintiff served his written discovery
requests. The requests the Plaintiff sought to compel were substantially over broad and unduly
burdensome. Docket #52 at 2 & n.1. The Plaintiff pressed this position in his written presentation
and oral argument. After a lengthy hearing, in a written order, the Court analyzed each of the
requests separately and made individual rulings on each request, allowing some and denying others.
Docket #52. The Court did not extend the then expired period for fact discovery, but ordered the
Defendant to produce the information by a specified date. Id. The Plaintiff, after a procedural
misstep, see Electronic Order dated Jan. 13, 2010, moved for reconsideration. The Motion identifies
neither an error in law nor fact infecting the Court’s decision, but rather, in essence, contends that
in light of what the Court did order the Defendant to produce, the Plaintiff is entitled to or needs

more discovery as to certain categories of documents. See Docket #55. After careful consideration
of the Plaintiff’s Motion and the opposition filed by the Defendant and in light of the standards
applicable to motions to reconsideration as well as the stage of this litigation, the Motion for
Reconsideration is DENIED.
/S/ Leo T. Sorokin
LEO T. SOROKIN
MAGISTRATE JUDGE

2