Lee Dodge Inc. et al v. Nexteppe Business Solutions, Inc. et al

Filing 51

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER For the reasons stated in the Memorandum and Order the Court grants in part and denies in part 48 Motion for Extension of Time to Complete Discovery; denying as moot 48 Motion to Compel. The Court will give plaintiffs unti l November 23, 2011 to serve disclosure as to plaintiffs damages. Plaintiffs request to otherwise further extend discovery is denied, largely for the reasons stated in the East Hills Letter and stated by the Court on the record at the last two proce edings in this case. Depositions must be completed by the December 16th discovery deadline, and must be scheduled for dates that are mutually agreeable to all counsel. The Court will tolerate no further delays in this case. Ordered by Magistrate Judge Roanne L. Mann on 11/18/2011. (Maynard, Pat)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
---------------------------------------------------------------x
LEE DODGE INC., et al.
Plaintiffs,
-against-

MEMORANDUM
AND ORDER
10-CV-5943 (SJ)

NEXTEPPE BUSINESS SOLUTIONS,
INC., et al.,
Defendants.
---------------------------------------------------------------x
ROANNE L. MANN, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE:
Plaintiffs’ motion for additional time to complete discovery, and for a compulsion order
against defendant East Hills, ECF Docket Entry (“DE”) #48, is denied except to the limited
extent specified below.
As an initial matter, despite previous admonitions from this Court, see Order (Nov. 1,
2011), D.E. #41, plaintiffs persist in ignoring the Court’s Individual Rules, in that they failed
to consult with opposing counsel to ascertain their positions on this motion. On that basis
alone, the Court would be justified in denying the application in its entirety.1
In any event, plaintiffs’ motion to compel is denied as moot, inasmuch as the inspection
sought by plaintiffs has taken place. See Letter to the Court from Richard M. Hendler (Nov.
18, 2011) (“East Hills Letter”), at 2, DE #50. The Court will not order East Hills to produce
hard copies that it does not maintain. See id.

1

It cannot be claimed that plaintiffs had no opportunity to consult with defense counsel before
filing the motion: Plaintiffs’ counsel telephoned Chambers on the afternoon of Tuesday,
November 15, 2011, and spoke with the Court’s law clerk, apparently seeking advice or an
oral ex parte ruling; plaintiffs’ counsel was told that any application should be made in writing.
Plaintiffs’ motion was not filed until almost 7:30 p.m. the following evening.

The Court will give plaintiffs until November 23, 2011 to serve disclosure as to
plaintiffs’ damages. Plaintiffs’ request to otherwise further extend discovery is denied, largely
for the reasons stated in the East Hills Letter and stated by the Court on the record at the last
two proceedings in this case. Depositions must be completed by the December 16th discovery
deadline, and must be scheduled for dates that are mutually agreeable to all counsel. The
Court will tolerate no further delays in this case.
SO ORDERED.
Dated:

Brooklyn, New York
November 18, 2011
/s/
ROANNE L. MANN
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

-2-