Mendez v. Enecon Northeast Applied Polymer Systems, Inc.

Filing 33

ORDER granting 30 Motion to Compel. SEE ATTACHED ORDER for details. Ordered by Magistrate Judge A. Kathleen Tomlinson on 10/13/2015. (Kandel, Erin)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
-------------------------------------------------------------------X
MATTHEW MENDEZ, on behalf of himself and
all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff,
ORDER
-against CV 14-6736 (ADS) (AKT)
ENECON NORTHEAST APPLIED POLYMER
SYSTEMS, INC., and ROBERT BARR and
MICHAEL BARR, each in their individual and
professional capacities,
Defendants.
-------------------------------------------------------------------X
A. KATHLEEN TOMLINSON, Magistrate Judge:
The Court has received Defendants’ letter motion requesting an Order compelling the
Plaintiff to appear for a limited continued deposition. See DE 30. Defendants seek to question
Plaintiff about T-Mobile text message records and GPS printouts which Plaintiff’s counsel did
not produce until after Plaintiff’s initial deposition on September 1, 2015. See id. The Court has
also received Plaintiff’s opposition to the motion. See DE 32.
Having considered these submissions, the Court concludes that Defendants have provided
adequate justification for continuing Plaintiff’s deposition solely for the limited purposes set
forth in their motion. See Carmody v. Vill. of Rockville Ctr., No. CV05-4907, 2007 WL
2177064, at *2 (E.D.N.Y. July 27, 2007); Finkelstein v. Sec. Indus. Automation Corp., No. 05–
cv–5195, 2006 WL 3065593, at *1 (E.D.N.Y. Oct.27, 2006) (“The court must allow additional
time consistent with Rule 26(b)(2) if needed for a fair examination of the deponent.”) (quoting
Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(d)(2)). The Court finds the arguments advanced by Plaintiff’s counsel
unavailing, particularly in light of the fact that (1) Plaintiff’s counsel did not provide the text

message records to Defendants’ counsel until September 11, 2015 even though T-Mobile
provided those records to Plaintiff’s counsel on May 29, 2015; and (2) Plaintiff’s counsel
questioned Defendants’ Rule 30(b)(6) witness about text messages contained in those records.
Accordingly, Defendants’ motion is GRANTED. Plaintiff is directed to appear for a
continued deposition, which is to be conducted solely for the purpose of allowing Defendants to
question Plaintiff about the T-Mobile text message records and GPS printouts. Plaintiff’s
continued deposition must be completed by the close of fact discovery, which the Court recently
extended to November 6, 2015. See Elec. Order of Oct. 6, 2015. The remaining deadlines in the
Final Scheduling Order [DE 20] are amended as follows:
FINAL SCHEDULING ORDER:


All fact discovery completed by:

November 6, 2015



Moving party’s Rule 56.1 Statement of
Undisputed Facts must be served by:

November 27, 2015

Opposing party’s Rule 56.1 Counterstatement
must be served by:

December 18, 2015

Any letter request for a pre-motion conference
to Judge Spatt for purposes of making a
summary judgment motion must be filed by:

January 4, 2016

Proposed Joint Pre-Trial Order must be
filed on ECF by:

March 7, 2016

Pre-Trial Conference will be held on:

March 14, 2016 at 11 AM







SO ORDERED.
Dated: Central Islip, New York
October 13, 2015
/s/ A. Kathleen Tomlinson
A. KATHLEEN TOMLINSON
U.S. Magistrate Judge
2