Deac v. IL Postino, Inc. et al

Filing 58

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER ruling on 56 Motion for Reconsideration. Having reconsidered its November 20th Order, the Court adheres to the rulings contained therein, but directs defendants to comply with the directive in footnote 3 of this opinion. Any objections to the rulings in this Memorandum and Order must be filed with the District Court no later than December 30, 2013, or will be deemed waived. Ordered by Magistrate Judge Roanne L. Mann on 12/12/2013. (Williams, Jennifer)[C/M to Plaintiff]

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
------------------------------------------------------------x
OVIDIU MARCEL DEAC,
MEMORANDUM
AND ORDER

Plaintiff,
-against-

12-CV-5952 (NGG)

IL POSTINO, INC., et al.,
Defendants.
------------------------------------------------------------x
ROANNE L. MANN, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE:
Currently pending before this Court is a document dated December 2, 2013, filed by
pro se plaintiff Ovidiu Marcel Deac (“plaintiff”), and titled “Plaintiff Motion to Reconsider”
(“Pl. Motion”), Electronic Case Filing (“ECF”) Docket Entry (“DE”) #56. Confusingly, in
his seven-page, single-space application, plaintiff asserts that he will “obey” and “will not
object to” the November 20, 2013 Memorandum and Order (“November 20th Order”) (DE
#54) of the undersigned magistrate judge, see Pl. Motion at 1; nevertheless, plaintiff asks the
“United States District Court” to grant “plaintiff’s motion to reconsider,” see id. Recognizing
that plaintiff is proceeding without counsel, the Court will construe plaintiff’s pending
application as a motion for reconsideration addressed to the judge who issued the challenged
decision. Having reviewed that application, and the November 20th Order, the Court declines
to modify its prior ruling.
DISCUSSION
Plaintiff contends that he “ask[ed] the Court several times to compel defendants to
answer plaintiff[’s] discovery and written interrogatories[,]” but that defendants failed to

comply and “obstructed” discovery. Pl. Motion at 1.1 While plaintiff, as is his habit, goes on
at length about the various wrongs allegedly committed by defendants, see Pl. Motion at 3-7,
the only aspect of the Court’s November 20th Order that he seems to challenge is its ruling
concerning immigration matters; specifically, plaintiff argues that “at this time [the] material
immigration issue . . . is completely obstructed.” Id. at 2. However, plaintiff ignores the
relevant portion of the Court’s ruling, which specifically overruled defendants’ objection to
the one discovery demand cited by plaintiff in his motion to compel: i.e., plaintiff’s
Interrogatory No. 7, which in substance asked whether defendant Il Postino, Inc., had offered
to sponsor defendant Mauro Jerez for a green card. See November 20th Order at 1-2.2 The
Court ordered defendants to respond to Interrogatory No. 7 by November 26, 2013, see id. at
2, and they apparently have done so. See Exhibit to Reply in Opposition, DE #57 at 3.3 Since

1

Among other things, plaintiff complains that defendants violated an earlier court order
requiring that they respond to plaintiff’s discovery demands by November 15, 2015. See Pl.
Motion at 1. Plaintiff misconstrues the referenced court order, which did no such thing.
Rather, when plaintiff moved to extend the deadline for discovery (and to open immigration
and tax investigations of defendants), see Motion for Extension of Time (“11/8/13 Pl.
Motion”), DE #49, the Court endorsed an order directing defendants “to respond to this
motion by November 15, 2013.” Endorsed Order, DE #50 (emphasis added). Defendants
complied with that order. See Reponse in Opposition to Motion (Nov. 15, 2013), DE #51.
2

In doing so, the Court cited defendants’ deposition examination of plaintiff on immigration
matters and defendants’ arguments to the Court in support thereof. See November 20th Order
at 2.
3

However, defendants’ response to Interrogatory No. 7 is incomplete (plaintiff also asked that
defendants specify the type of sponsorship) and is contained in an unsworn letter from defense
counsel. See generally 11/8/13 Pl. Motion at 2-3 (asserting that defendants falsely sponsored
Jerez as a cook). Defendants are directed to serve, by December 20, 2013, a response that
fully responds to Interrogatory No. 7 and fully complies with Rule 33(b) of the Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure.
-2-

plaintiff received a favorable ruling on this issue, there is no need for the Court to reconsider it
in response to his motion.
It may well be that plaintiff’s challenge to the alleged obstruction of “immigration
issues” does not relate to Interrogatory No. 7 but rather was intended to seek reconsideration
of that portion of the November 20th Order in which the Court, in its discretion, declined to
reopen discovery for ninety days. See November 20th Order at 3-4. Plaintiff has not satisfied
the high bar for securing reconsideration of that decision. See generally cases cited in Reply in
Opposition at 1, DE #57. In any event, even if the Court were inclined to revisit plaintiff’s
previous request to reopen discovery (despite plaintiff’s failure to expressly make such a
request in his pending motion for reconsideration), the Court would nevertheless reach the
same conclusion as before. The relevant procedural history of the case is set forth in the
November 20th Order and need not be recounted here; suffice it to say, plaintiff has no one to
blame but himself for failing to timely serve discovery demands. See November 20th Order at
3. Nor has he specified in his original motion for extension of time, or in his latest
application, what additional forms of discovery he requires in order to prove his case -- other
than his request for a response to Interrogatory No. 7. See id.; Pl. Motion at 4. Even
generously construing his pro se submissions, plaintiff has not shown good cause for reopening
discovery. See id. at 4 (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4)).

-3-

CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, having reconsidered its November 20th Order, the Court
adheres to the rulings contained therein, but directs defendants to comply with the directive in
footnote 3 of this opinion.
Any objections to the rulings in this Memorandum and Order must be filed with the
District Court no later than December 30, 2013, or will be deemed waived.
SO ORDERED.
Dated:

Brooklyn, New York
December 12, 2013

Roanne L. Mann

/s/
ROANNE L. MANN
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

-4-