800 COOPER FINANCE, LLC v. LIU et al
Filing
116
OPINION. Signed by Judge Joseph H. Rodriguez on 3/3/2021. (rtm, )
Case 1:16-cv-00736-JHR-JS Document 116 Filed 03/03/21 Page 1 of 6 PageID: 2436
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
800 COOPER FINANCE, LLC,
Plaintiff,
v.
SHU-LIN LIU, et al.,
Defendants.
:
: Civil Action No. 16-736 (JHR/JS)
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
KL HOLDINGS, INC., SHU-LIN LIU
: Civil Action No. 17-456 (JHR/JS)
AND JOLIN CHIAOLIN TSAO,
:
: Opinion
Plaintiff,
:
:
v.
:
:
800 COOPER FINANCE, LLC, JIMMY :
KWONG, KATHARINA M. GREGORIO, :
and John Does 1-5,
:
:
Defendants.
:
Before the Court is a motion by Defendants Jimmy Kwong and Katharina M. Gregorio
(“Defendants”) for reconsideration of the Honorable Magistrate Judge Schneider’s January 15, 2021
text order which extended fact discovery and required Defendants to be deposed. Defendants’
motion further seeks a protective order to bar Plaintiffs from deposing Defendants. Also before the
Court is Plaintiffs’ cross-motion for sanctions. For the reasons set forth below, the Court will deny
both motions.
I.
Background
Defendants in this case filed a motion for summary judgment on October 26, 2020, which
1
Case 1:16-cv-00736-JHR-JS Document 116 Filed 03/03/21 Page 2 of 6 PageID: 2437
attached declarations from Defendants Kwong and Gregorio as exhibits. [Dkt. 99-8]. That day,
Judge Schneider entered a scheduling order stating that fact discovery would conclude on December
31, 2020. [Dkt. 101]. On December 24, 2020, before the December 31, 2020 discovery deadline,
Plaintiffs noticed Defendants for depositions to be taken on December 30, 2020. [Dkt. 113-6].
Defendants informed Plaintiffs that they were unavailable for deposition on that date due to
insufficient notice. [Dkt. 113-6]. Plaintiffs subsequently inquired about mutually agreeable times
for deposition, but on January 8, 2021 Defendants informed Plaintiffs that they would not participate
in depositions at all. [Dkt. 113-9]. On January 13, 2021, Plaintiffs submitted a letter asking Judge
Schneider to compel Defendants to participate in depositions and extend the discovery deadline.
[Dkt. 107]. Defendants responded with a letter urging Judge Schneider to reject Plaintiffs’ requests
because Plaintiffs did not seek to extend the discovery period before fact discovery closed. [Dkt.
109].
Judge Schneider scheduled a hearing on these issues for January 15, 2021, but Defendants
were unable to attend. [Dkt. 110]. On January 15, 2021, Judge Schneider issued an order in favor
of Plaintiffs which ordered Kwong and Gregorio to participate in depositions by February 15, 2021,
extended the fact discovery period to April 30, 2021, and found good cause for modifying the
discovery schedule to accommodate these depositions. [Dkt. 111]. Defendants filed the present
motion seeking reconsideration of Judge Schneider’s January 15, 2021 order. [Dkt. 112]. Plaintiffs
responded and cross-moved for sanctions. [Dkt. 113 at 10].
II.
Legal Analysis
“The purpose of a motion for reconsideration is to correct manifest errors of law or fact or to
present newly discovered evidence.” Harsco Corp. v. Zlotnicki, 779 F.2d 906, 909 (3d Cir. 1985).
It must be stressed, however, that reconsideration is “an extraordinary remedy” and is granted
“sparingly.” NL Indus., Inc. v. Commercial Union Ins. Co., 935 F. Supp. 513, 516 (D.N.J. 1996).
2
Case 1:16-cv-00736-JHR-JS Document 116 Filed 03/03/21 Page 3 of 6 PageID: 2438
To succeed on a motion for reconsideration, the moving party must show “more than a
disagreement” with the decision it would like reconsidered. Anders v. FPA Corp., 164 F.R.D. 383,
387 (D.N.J. 1995). Instead, the moving party must show that “(1) an intervening change in the
controlling law has occurred; (2) evidence not previously available has become available; or (3) it is
necessary to correct a clear error of law or prevent manifest injustice, Reich v. Schering-Plough
Corp., No. CV 07-1508 (KSH), 2008 WL 11383793, at *1 (D.N.J. July 7, 2008) (collecting cases).
Thus, a “mere recapitulation of the cases and arguments considered by the court before rendering
the original decision” does not warrant a grant of reconsideration. Carteret Sav. Bank, F.A. v.
Shushan, 721 F. Supp. 705, 706 (D.N.J. 1989), modified, 919 F.2d 225 (3d Cir. 1990); accord In re
Gabapentin Patent Litigation, 432 F. Supp. 2d 461, 463 (D.N.J. 2006); S.C. v. Deptford Twp. Bd. of
Educ., 248 F. Supp. 2d 368, 381 (D.N.J. 2003).
A motion for reconsideration “is not … an opportunity for a litigant to raise new arguments
or present evidence that could have been raised prior to the initial judgment.” Red Roof Franchising
LLC, Inc. v. AA Hosp. Northshore, LLC, 937 F. Supp. 2d 537, 543 (D.N.J. 2013), aff'd sub nom. Red
Roof Franchising, LLC v. Patel, 564 F. App'x 685 (3d Cir. 2014) (collecting cases). A motion for
reconsideration will therefore fail if the moving party raises arguments or presents evidence that
could have been raised or presented before the original decision was reached. NL Indus., 935 F.
Supp. at 516.
Defendants’ motion for reconsideration fails because it repeats identical arguments from
Defendants’ January 14, 2021 letter to Judge Schneider and improperly presents a new argument
which Defendants failed to present in that letter. In their January 14, 2021 letter, Defendants asked
Judge Schneider not to extend fact discovery under Local Rule 6.1(a)(2) because Plaintiffs served
their extension request after the December 31, 2020 fact discovery deadline.1 [Dkt. 109 at 4].
1
Local Rule 6.1 provides, in pertinent part
3
Case 1:16-cv-00736-JHR-JS Document 116 Filed 03/03/21 Page 4 of 6 PageID: 2439
Defendants present the same argument here. [Dkt. 112-1 at 6]. Defendants fail to show more than a
“mere disagreement” with Judge Schneider’s rejection of their Local Rule 6.1 argument, his goodcause finding, and his resultant Order. Anders, 164 F.R.D. at 387.
Defendants insist that Judge Schneider violated Local Rule 6.1 by granting Plaintiff’s
request to order depositions and extend discovery because Plaintiffs requested the extensions after
the discovery period closed. [Dkt. 112-1]. However, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure and Local
Rule 16.1 govern modifications to discovery scheduling orders such as Judge Schneider’s. See
CollegeSource, Inc. v. AcademyOne, Inc., 597 F. App'x 116, 124 (3d Cir. 2015) (holding that a
motion to reopen the discovery period and permit discovery of new evidence “place[d] the motion
squarely within the ambit of Rule 16(b).” (citing LeBoon v. Lancaster Jewish Cmty. Ctr. Ass'n, 503
F.3d 217, 235 (3d Cir. 2007))). Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16(b)(4) permits courts to modify
an existing discovery schedule for good cause. Judge Schneider’s Order indicates that he found
good cause to enter the Order [Dkt. 111], and Defendants fail to show otherwise. Thus, Defendants
have not shown that Judge Schneider’s decision to extend discovery constitutes a “clear error of
law” error worthy of reconsideration. See Reich, 2008 WL 11383793, at *1.
Defendants’ request for a protective order fails for the same reason. Defendants urge the
Court to excuse Kwong and Gregorio from depositions because Plaintiffs failed to depose them in a
timely manner and to provide reasonable notice of the depositions. [Dkt. 112-1 at 9–11].
Defendants presented these same objections to Judge Schneider in their January 14, 2020 letter, and
now ask the Court to override Judge Schneider’s judgment in the form of a protective order. The
Court declines to do so.
(a) Each application for an extension of time shall:
(1) be made in writing;
(2) be served prior to the expiration of the period sought to be extended; and
(3) disclose in the application the date service of process was effected and all similar
extensions previously obtained.
4
Case 1:16-cv-00736-JHR-JS Document 116 Filed 03/03/21 Page 5 of 6 PageID: 2440
Defendants also argue for the first time that Plaintiffs failed to comply with Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 6 because Plaintiffs did not seek an extension before the discovery deadline or
establish excusable neglect that would justify an untimely extension.2 [Dkt. 112-1 at 6–8]. As
stated above, Federal Rule 6 does not apply in this case. Even if it did apply, Defendants did not
cite Federal Rule 6 in their January 14, 2021 letter, argue that Federal Rule 6 governed Judge
Schneider’s decision, or argue that Plaintiffs did not satisfy Federal Rule 6’s requirements.
Defendants cannot now ask the Court to reconsider issues that they failed to raise for the Court in
the first instance. See Red Roof Franchising LLC, Inc., 937 F. Supp. 2d at 543–44.
Finally, Plaintiffs cross-move for sanctions, alleging that Defendants filed their motion for
reconsideration “improperly and solely for purposes of additional delay.” [Dkt. 113 at 10].
Plaintiffs do not specify a legal basis for sanctions. To the extent Plaintiffs seek sanctions under
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11(c)(2),3 Plaintiffs did not follow proper procedures because they
requested sanctions in a cross-motion rather than a separate motion.4 In any event, the Court
declines to exercise its discretion to award sanctions because it does not find that Defendants filed
their motion for reconsideration for improper purposes or otherwise engaged in sanctionable
conduct. Doering v. Union Cty. Bd. of Chosen Freeholders, 857 F.2d 191, 195 (3d Cir. 1988)
(emphasizing a court’s discretion to award and fashion sanctions under Rule 11). See also
Chambers v. NASCO, Inc., 501 U.S. 32, 44–45 (1991) (discussing a district court’s inherent
2
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 6(b) states in pertinent part
(1) In General. When an act may or must be done within a specified time, the court may, for good
cause, extend the time:
(A) with or without motion or notice if the court acts, or if a request is made, before the
original time or its extension expires; or
(B) on motion made after the time has expired if the party failed to act because of
excusable neglect.
3
Rule 11(c) authorizes courts to impose sanctions sua sponte or by motion for violations of Rule 11(b) including where
a party submits a written motion to the court “for any improper purpose, such as to harass, cause unnecessary delay, or
needlessly increase the cost of litigation.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(b)(1).
4
“A motion for sanctions must be made separately from any other motion and must describe the specific conduct that
allegedly violates Rule 11(b).”
5
Case 1:16-cv-00736-JHR-JS Document 116 Filed 03/03/21 Page 6 of 6 PageID: 2441
authority to award sanctions for “abuses [of] the judicial process”). The court therefore denies
Plaintiffs’ cross-motion for sanctions.
For these reasons the Court will deny Defendants’ motion for reconsideration and request for
a protective order. Defendants Kwong and Gregorio must submit to deposition by March 31, 2021.
The Court also denies Plaintiffs’ cross-motion for sanctions. An appropriate order will follow.
March 3, 2021
/s/ Joseph H. Rodriguez
Hon. Joseph H. Rodriguez, USDJ
6
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?