Sea Trade Maritime Corporation et al v. Stelios Coutsodontis

Filing 140

OPINION AND ORDER re: 128 MOTION for Reconsideration re; 125 Endorsed Letter filed by George Peters, Sea Trade Maritime Corporation: Accordingly, the schedule in this matter is modified as follows: 1. Plaintiffs shall m ake their motion to compel within 14 days of the date of this Order. 2. Plaintiffs shall make all disclosures required by Rule 26(a)(2) no later than August 29, 2014. 3. Defendants shall make all disclosures required by Rule 26(a)(2) no later than Se ptember 30, 2014. 4. Additional dispositive motions, if any, shall be made no later than October 15, 2014. 5. The Pretrial Order, in the form required by Judge Schofield's rules, along with all other pretrial submissions required by Judge Schofi eld, shall be filed on November 17, 2014 or thirty days after the final decision on any dispositive motion (if the pretrial order is still necessary after such decision), whichever date is later. (Signed by Magistrate Judge Henry B. Pitman on 7/30/2014) Copies Transmitted By Chambers. (tn)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
-----------------------------------X
SEA TRADE MARITIME
CORPORATION, et al.,

:
:

09 Civ. 488 (LGS)(HBP)

:

OPINION
AND ORDER

Plaintiffs,
-against:
STELIOS COUTSODONTIS, et al.,
:
Defendants.
:
-----------------------------------X

PITMAN, United States Magistrate Judge:

By notice of motion dated June 20, 2014 (Docket Item
128), plaintiff's move for reconsideration of my endorsed order
dated June 6, 2014 (Docket Item 125) which denied plaintiff's
motion to extend discovery.

For the reasons set forth below

plaintiff's motion for reconsideration is granted, and discovery
is reopened to the limited extent of permitting plaintiff to move
to enforce its request for the production of documents and
extending the date for the production of expert disclosures.
The limitations applicable to a motion for reconsideration are set forth in my decision in Advanced Analytics, Inc. v.
Citigroup Global Markets, Inc., 04 Civ. 3531 (LTS)(HBP), 2014 WL
1855259 (S.D.N.Y. May 7, 2014), and it is not necessary to repeat
those limitations here.

As I noted in Advanced Analytics and

during oral argument on the instant motion, a party cannot offer
new facts in support of a motion for reconsideration; the parties
are usually limited to the record created on the underlying
motion.

Although plaintiffs have not submitted an affidavit in

support of their motion for reconsideration, they have submitted
a memorandum of law which attempts to offer numerous new facts.
The limitations on what can be considered on a motion for reconsideration cannot be circumvented by the simple expedient of
offering new facts in a memorandum of law instead of an affidavit
or declaration.
The central reason offered by plaintiffs in support of
their application to extend discovery is the inactivity of their
prior counsel.
If this were all the record disclosed, I would be
inclined to deny plaintiffs' motion.

However, it was also

disclosed at oral argument that plaintiffs timely served document
requests that were ignored by defendants because defendants were
owed documents by plaintiffs.

There is nothing in the Federal

Rules of Civil Procedure that permits a party who believes it is
owed discovery to withhold production of its own discovery as a
self-help remedy.

Hammond v. Beth Israel Medical Center, 10 Civ.

93 (NRB), 2011 WL 5980952 at *4 n.2 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 30, 2011)
(Buchwald, D.J.); see generally R.F.M.A.S., Inc. v. So, 271
2

F.R.D. 13, 33 (S.D.N.Y. 2010) (Dolinger, M.J.).

Defendants'

decision to simply ignore plaintiffs' document requests was
clearly improper.
Considering both plaintiffs' lethargy in pursuing
discovery and defendants' improper use of a self-help remedy, I
conclude that the most appropriate resolution is to permit
discovery to be reopened to the limited extent of (1) permitting
plaintiff to move to compel its timely-served request for the
production of documents and (2) extending the deadline for
plaintiff's expert disclosures.
Accordingly, the schedule in this matter is modified as
follows:
1.

Plaintiffs shall make their motion to compel

within 14 days of the date of this Order.
2.

Plaintiffs shall make all disclosures required

by Rule 26(a)(2) no later than August 29, 2014.
3.

Defendants shall make all disclosures required

by Rule 26(a)(2) no later than September 30, 2014.
4.

Additional dispositive motions, if any, shall

be made no later than October 15, 2014.
5.

The Pretrial Order, in the form required by

Judge Schofield's rules, along with all other pretrial
submissions required by Judge Schofield, shall be filed
3

on November 17, 2014 or thirty days after the final
decision on any dispositive motion (if the pretrial
order is still necessary after such decision) , whichever date is later.

Plaintiffs shall serve a draft of

their portion of the Pretrial Order on counsel for
defendant no later than fifteen days prior to the
Pretrial Order•s due date.

For the convenience of all

parties, a copy of Judge Schofield•s rules is available
on the Court•s website:
Dated:

www.nysd.uscourts.gov.

New York, New York
July 30, 2014
SO ORDERED

HENRY PI
United States Magistrate Judge
Copies transmitted to:
Jason H. Berland, Esq.
Beys, Stein & Mobargha LLP
405 Lexington Avenue
New York, New York 10174
Scott R. Johnston, Esq.
John G. Poles, Esq.
Poles Tublin Stratakis
Gonzalez & Weichert, LLP
46 Trinity Place
New York, New York 10006
Peter Skoufalos, Esq.
Brown Gavalas & Fromm LLP
355 Lexington Avenue
New York, New York 10017
4