Chwedczuk v. Horowitz

Filing 25

OPINION re: 22 FIRST LETTER MOTION for Conference addressed to Judge Robert W. Sweet from William Ricigliano dated June 3, 2016, filed by Albert Chwedczuk. Based on the conclusions set forth above, Plaintiff's motion to schedul e a status conference to schedule depositions is denied, but Plaintiff's motion to extend the deadline to exchange expert reports is granted. The deadline to exchange expert reports is extended to October 7, 2016. (Signed by Judge Robert W. Sweet on 7/5/2016) (tro)

..
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

----------------------------------------x
ALBERT CHWEDCZUK,
Plaintiff,
14 Civ. 8020

(RWS)

- against OPINION
GREGORY HOROWITZ,
Defendant.

----------------------------------------x
A P P E A R A N C E S:

USDCSDNY
DOCUMENT
ELECTRONICALLY FILED
DOC #:

DATE FI~LE=~D
~:-==;-h~_,_,~

Counsel for Plaintiff
WILLIAM RICIGLIANO, P.C.
232 Madison Avenue, Suite 1200
New York, NY 10016
By: William Ricigliano, Esq.
Shanna Bailey, Esq.

Counsel for Defendant
EUSTACE, COTTER,
1133 Westchester
White Plains, NY
By : Christopher

AND BENDER
Avenue Suite S-325
10604
Michael Yapchanyk, Esq.

1

Sweet, D . J. ,

Plaintiff Albert Chwedczuk ("Plaintiff" or " Chwedczuk") has
moved for a status conference to discuss scheduling for certain
depositions of defendant Gregory Horowitz's ("Defendant " or
"Horowitz " ) witnesses and to extend the deadline f or expert
discovery.

Defendant did not file papers opposing the motion.

The Court does not believe that a status conference will be an
effective method to schedule depositions as discussed below.
However, the deadline to exchange e xpert reports is extended to
October 7, 2016 to allow the parties additional time to schedule
and conduct depositions.

I.

Applicable Standards

Rule 26 "create[s] many options for the district judge .
[to] manage the discovery process to facilitate prompt and
efficient resolution of the lawsuit."

Crawford-El v . Britton,

523 U.S. 574 , 599, 118 S. Ct. 1584, 1597, 140 L. Ed. 2d 759
(1998).

It "vests the trial judge with broad discretion to

tailor discovery narrowly and to dictate the sequence of
discovery."

Id. at 598.

The district court may expand or limit

the permitted number and time limits of depositions, direct "the
time, place, and manner of discovery, or even bar discovery on

2

certain subjects," and may "set the timing and sequence of
discovery."

Id. at 598 - 99; Fed . R. Civ. P . 26(b) (2) (A) .

Consequently , the Court has wide discretion in deciding
motions to compel .
F.3d 473,

488

See Grand Cent . P ' ship. Inc . v. Cuomo, 166

(2d Cir. 1999) .

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure

26 states:
Parties may obtain discovery regarding any nonprivileged
matter that is relevant to any party's claim or defenseincluding the existence, description, nature , custody,
condition, and location of any documents or other tangible
things and the identity and location of persons who know of
any discoverable matter .
For good cause , the court may
order discovery of any matter relevant to the subject
matter involved in the action.
Fed . R . Civ. P. 26.

If a party objects to discovery requests,

that party bears the burden of showing why discovery should be
denied .

Freydl v. Meringolo, 09 Civ . 07196 (BSJ) (KNF), 2011 WL

2 5 6 6 0 8- 7, at * 3 ( S. D. N. Y . June 16 , 2011) .

II .

The Mo tion to Compel Certain Depositi ons and Extend the
Exper t Discovery Report Deadline i s Granted

Defendant has an obligation to cooperate in scheduling
depositions of witnesses under its control .

Local Civil Rule

26 . 4(a) requires counsel to "cooperate with each other .
all phases of the discovery process."

. in

Plaintiff ' s counsel notes

that she has attempted to contact Defendant's counsel on four

3

different occasions by email and letter to arrange depositions.
Plaintiff's counsel notes that Defense counsel has not 'responded
to any of these requests to set up dates for depositions.
Defendant's counsel is not cooperating in this case in violation
of the Local Civil Rules.

However, Plaintiff must use the tools available under the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure to schedule depositions.

Under

Rule 30(b) (1), Plaintiff can send reasonable notice of the date
and time of a deposition as a Notice of Deposition.

Without

leave of the court, Plaintiff could compel the attendance of
defense witnesses under Rule 30(a) (1) through issuing a subpoena
under Rule 45.

If Defendant still does not comply with these

required procedures, then Plaintiff could move to compel before
this Court.

III.

Conclusion

Based on the conclusions set forth above, Plaintiff's
motion to schedule a status conference to schedule depositions
is denied, but Plaintiff's motion to extend the deadline to
exchange expert reports is granted.

The deadline to exchange

expert reports is extended to October 7, 2016.

4

. .

\..

.

It is so ordered .

New York, NY
July 5..-, 2016

RO

5