Mitchell Group USA, LLC et al v. Udeh et al

Filing 109

ORDER denying 106 Motion for Discovery. For the reasons set forth in the attached document, I deny the Timite Defendants' requests to reopen discovery and to permit the untimely filing of an amended Answer. To the extent the Timite Defendants seek relief with respect to sanctions I did not impose, I respectfully defer to Judge Irizarry to rule on the request. The Timite Defendants' request for a telephone conference is denied as unnecessary. Ordered by Magistrate Judge James Orenstein on 9/17/2015. (Orenstein, James)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
----------------------------------------------------------X
MITCHELL GROUP USA, LLC, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
- against NKEM UDEH, et al.,
Defendants.
----------------------------------------------------------X

MEMORANDUM
AND ORDER
14-CV-5745 (DLI) (JO)

JAMES ORENSTEIN, Magistrate Judge:
As the docket reflects, Sahendou Timite, the principal of defendants Timite & Son Beauty
Supplies, Inc. and World Beauty Distributor, Inc. (collectively, the "Timite Defendants"), personally
attended court proceedings in this case on June 16, 2015, and August 20, 2015. At each of those
conferences, the court explicitly addressed the Timite Defendants' many failures to discharge their
obligations in this litigation and imposed certain further obligations. Thus, whatever difficulties the
Timite Defendants' new counsel may face in representing the Timite Defendants because of the timing
of their decision to engage new counsel, the defendants themselves cannot entirely blame their prior
counsel for their own failures over the past three months to discharge their obligations.
Moreover, the scheduling of yesterday's conference was clearly stated on the docket in the
current Case Management and Scheduling Order. See Docket Entry ("DE") 92. There is no reason the
Timite Defendants' new counsel could not have reviewed the docket upon entering a notice of
appearance, and thus known of the obligation to appear at yesterday's conference had she done so.
Finally, I respectfully suggest that the Timite Defendants' decision to engage an attorney who
will immediately become unavailable for the next eleven days, thereby requiring the court and the
plaintiff to rearrange their schedules to accommodate that unavailability, undermines the
persuasiveness of new counsel's assertion that "it is [the Timite Defendants] absolute intention to
engage in a course correction in this litigation so that the Court and counsel are treated with proper
respect[.]" DE 106 at 2.

I therefore deny the Timite Defendants' requests to reopen discovery and to permit the
untimely filing of an amended Answer. To the extent the Timite Defendants seek relief with respect to
sanctions I did not impose, I respectfully defer to Judge Irizarry to rule on the request. The Timite
Defendants' request for a telephone conference is denied as unnecessary.
SO ORDERED.
Dated: Brooklyn, New York
September 17, 2015

_
/s/
JAMES ORENSTEIN
U.S. Magistrate Judge

2