United States District Court, S.D. New York
December 8, 2004.
TRACY UTSEY, Plaintiff,
AMERICAN BIBLE SOCIETY, et ano., Defendants.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: LEWIS KAPLAN, District Judge
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
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
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
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.