Ceglia v. Zuckerberg et al

Filing 408

DECISION and ORDER. Plaintiff's request to extend the time for filing Plaintiff's expert reports, June 3, 2012, (Doc. No. 391) is DENIED. Plaintiff's alternative request for leave to amend or supplement such reports following deposition of Plaintiffs motion to compel is DISMISSED without prejudice. Signed by Hon. Leslie G. Foschio on 5/31/2012. (SDW)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
PAUL D. CEGLIA,
Plaintiff,
v.
MARK ELLIOT ZUCKERBERG,
FACEBOOK, INC.,

DECISION
and
ORDER
10-CV-569A(F)

Defendants.

APPEARANCES:

PAUL A. ARGENTIERI, ESQ.
Attorney for Plaintiff
188 Main Street
Hornell, New York 14843
BOLAND LEGAL, LLC
Attorney for Plaintiff
DEAN M. BOLAND, of Counsel
18123 Sloane Avenue
Lakewood, Ohio 44107
GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER, LLP
Attorneys for Defendants
ORIN S. SNYDER,
ALEXANDER H. SOUTHWELL,
THOMAS H. DUPREE, JR., of Counsel
200 Park Avenue, 47th Floor
New York, New York 10166-0193
HARRIS BEACH LLP
Attorneys for Defendants
TERRANCE P. FLYNN, of Counsel
Larkin at Exchange
726 Exchange Street, Suite 1000
Buffalo, New York 14210

By papers filed May 29, 2012 (Doc. No. 391), Plaintiff requests the court to
extend the timetable for filing Plaintiff’s expert reports, June 3, 2012, established by the
court following a hearing on Defendants’ motion to stay discovery (Doc. No. 348), or to
allow Plaintiff to amend his expert reports following disposition of Plaintiff’s motion to

compel filed May 27, 2012 (Doc. No. 389). Defendants oppose Plaintiff’s request
(Defendants’ Opposition to Ceglia’s Motion for Extension of Time (Doc. No. 407) filed
May 31, 2012 (“Defendants’ Opposition”)).
Based on its review of the reasons stated in Defendants’ Opposition, the court
finds, contrary to those asserted by Plaintiff, there are no grounds to warrant any
modification of the scheduled due date for filing of Plaintiff’s expert reports. Plaintiff has
had ample time to comply with the court’s schedule. Any possible need to supplement
Plaintiff’s expert reports can be addressed following disposition of Plaintiff’s motion to
compel.

CONCLUSION
Based on the foregoing, Plaintiff’s request to extend the time for filing Plaintiff’s
expert reports, June 3, 2012, (Doc. No. 391) is DENIED. Plaintiff’s alternative request
for leave to amend or supplement such reports following deposition of Plaintiff’s motion
to compel is DISMISSED without prejudice.
SO ORDERED.
/s/ Leslie G. Foschio
________________________________
LESLIE G. FOSCHIO
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Dated: May 31, 2012
Buffalo, New York

2