Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

UTSEY v. AMERICAN BIBLE SOCIETY

United States District Court, S.D. New York


December 8, 2004.

TRACY UTSEY, Plaintiff,
v.
AMERICAN BIBLE SOCIETY, et ano., Defendants.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: LEWIS KAPLAN, District Judge

ORDER

By letter dated November 26, 2004, plaintiff seeks "an extension to the current and amended discovery schedule," arguing that she was evicted on November 10, 2004 and now resides in a homeless shelter.

The Court is sympathetic to plaintiff's present plight. Nevertheless, there is no justification for the relief sought.

  Plaintiff originally was represented by counsel. When the second of her retained attorneys was relieved in November 2003, the Court entered an order requiring the completion of discovery — regardless of whether plaintiff retained another attorney — by February 13, 2004. (Docket item 34) In February 2004, that date was extended until March 15, 2004. (Docket item 40) But nothing happened.

  In October the Court order plaintiff to show cause why the action should not again be dismissed for lack of prosecution.*fn1 (Docket item 50) Plaintiff responded by claiming that she had done nothing because she had been waiting for some communication from the Court in response to letters by defendants' counsel in which they had complained that plaintiff had not appeared for deposition. (Docket item 51) But there was no suggestion of any reason why plaintiff had failed to go forward with her own discovery, if indeed she wished to do any discovery. Indeed, there was no suggestion by either side that any discovery remained to be done save for defendants' deposition of plaintiff. Accordingly, the Court directed plaintiff to appear for deposition and directed her to provide her draft of the joint pretrial order to the defendants' counsel no later than November 23, 2004. (Docket item 52)

  In all of the circumstances, there is no reason to extend the discovery schedule. Plaintiff had ample opportunity to conduct discovery, if she ever wished to do that, long before she was evicted. The eviction, unfortunate as it may be, is not a reason to reopen discovery that should have been and, as far as the record discloses, was completed long ago save for plaintiff's deposition.

  The application for an extension of the discovery period is denied. This order does not affect defendants' motion to dismiss the action on the ground that plaintiff failed to comply with the Court's October 28, 2004 order.

  SO ORDERED.


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.