Jackson v. The City of New York et al

Filing 74

ORDER granting in part and denying in part 70 Motion for Reconsideration. The Court in its discretion will grant the motion in limited part, and will allow plaintiff to conduct four additional depositions, but only to the extent that those depositions were previously noticed and that those depositions will be completed by August 11, 2017. Ordered by Chief Mag. Judge Roanne L. Mann on 7/20/2017. (Proujansky, Josh)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
---------------------------------------------------------------x
DONNELL JACKSON,
Plaintiff,
-against-

MEMORANDUM
AND ORDER
15-cv-4109 (CBA)

THE CITY OF NEW YORK, et al.,
Defendants.
---------------------------------------------------------------x
ROANNE L. MANN, CHIEF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE:
Currently pending before this Court is plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration of the
Court’s Electronic Order of July 6, 2017 (“July 6th Order”), see Letter Motion for
Reconsideration (July 12, 2017) (“Pl. Mot.”), Electronic Case Filing Docket Entry (“DE”)
#70, along with his unauthorized reply in support of that motion, see Reply in Support (July
17, 2017), DE #73. The motion is opposed by defendants. See Reply in Opposition (July
17, 2017) (“Def. Opp.”), DE #72.
The July 6th Order denied plaintiff’s July 5th request for a 45-day extension of the fact
discovery deadline, see Second Motion for Extension of Time (July 5, 2017), DE #69, which
deadline was scheduled to expire the following day, see Electronic Order (May 2, 2017).
After noting that the case had been pending for about two years and that fact discovery had
closed on September 15, 2016, the Court’s July 6th Order cited the fact that the discovery
period had recently been reopened for an additional two months and that plaintiff’s July 5th
request for yet another extension had failed to explain the parties’ inability to complete

discovery within the 60-day extension previously allotted. See July 6th Order. After
recounting the entire history of the case, plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration for the first time
addresses the purported inadequacy of the 60-day extension that had just expired, claiming that
plaintiff’s counsel was “out of the country” until mid-May and “unable to schedule depositions
right away.”

Pl. Motion at 4. Even if true - - and defendants counter that another attorney

was covering for plaintiff’s counsel in his absence, see Def. Opp. at 2 - - a motion for
reconsideration is not a vehicle for presenting arguments that had not been raised with the
Court on the initial motion. See, e.g., Salveson v. JP Morgan Chase & Co., 663 F.App’x
71, 75-76 (2d Cir. 2016).
For this reason, the Court would be amply justified in denying plaintiff’s motion for
reconsideration in its entirety. Nevertheless, the Court in its discretion will grant the motion
in limited part, and will allow plaintiff to conduct four additional depositions, but only to the
extent that those depositions were previously noticed and that those depositions will be
completed by August 11, 2017.
SO ORDERED.
Dated: Brooklyn, New York
July 20, 2017
/s/

Roanne L. Mann

ROANNE L. MANN
CHIEF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE