United States District Court, S.D. New York
OPINION AND ORDER
L. ELLIS, United States Magistrate Judge.
November 4, 2011, Plaintiff Frank Mazzocchi commenced this
action. (Doc. No. 1.) This case is before the undersigned for
General Pretrial. (Doc. No. 189.) Discovery closed on April
14, 2015. (Doc. No. 125.) Prior to the close of discovery,
the Parties filed a thirteen-page joint letter, with attached
exhibits, detailing several discovery disputes. (Doc. No.
127.) These disputes were resolved on April 22, and May 11,
2015. (Doc. Nos. 130, 133.) The Parties briefed amotion for
summary judgment, (Doc. Nos. 140-52, 162-67, 173, 179-80.),
which was decided on August 31, 2016, by the Honorable
Analisa Torres. (Doc. No. 188.) The case is now assigned to
the Honorable Ronnie Abrams.
a status conference held on November 14, 2016, the Court was
informed that Plaintiff was seeking discovery supplementation
from Defendants. (Hr'g Tr., Doc. No. 203.) The Court
ordered the Parties to jointly file a position letter, which
was filed on December 15, 2016. (Doc. No. 198.) On December
20, 2016, the Court ordered the Parties to file a
supplemental joint submission, (Doc. No. 199.), which was
filed on January 12, 2017. (Doc. No. 202.)
requests are summarized as follows:
(1) "All handwritten notes from Board Meetings minutes
from January 2007 until the present, only to the extent that
the notes reference Mazzocchi, Doe, Apartment 821 or
(2) "All handwritten notes to Board Meeting agendas,
reports, or similar from 2007 until the present, only to the
extent that the notes reference Mazzocchi, Doe, Apartment 821
(3) "All written complaints concerning Plaintiff, Doe or
(4) "All non-privileged documents concerning the
eviction (including the reasons therefor) of Thomas Heavey II
(those that are privileged, provide a privilege log)."
(5) "Any communications between Windsor Owners Corp. and
Tudor Realty Services (or agents of the respective
corporations) concerning Plaintiff, Doe, Plaintiffs tenancy
or Apartment 821."
(Doc. No. 202 at 1-2.)
served his first set of document requests on November 29,
2013. (Doc. No. 202-2.) Defendants responded to those
requests on January 14, 2014. (Doc. No. 202-8.) On February
16, 2015, Plaintiff sent a "follow-up" letter to
Defendants alleging discovery deficiencies. (Doc. No. 202-5.)
Defendants responded to Plaintiffs letter on March 2, 2015,
"object[ing] to the fact that [Plaintiff] waited over a
year after the production was made" to raise
deficiencies. (Doc. No. 202-6 at 2.) In Defendants'
letter, they object to requests 1 through 5 for which
Plaintiff now seeks supplementation. (Id. at 3-5,
7-9.) Despite their objections, Defendants did agree to
produce some responsive documents and indicated that there
were some requests for which no responsive documents existed.
Plaintiff s requests were within the scope of discovery, the
Court "must limit the frequency or extent of discovery
otherwise allowed by [federal or local rules] if it
determines that the party seeking discovery has had ample
opportunity to obtain the information by discovery in the
action." Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(b)(2)(C)(ii). The Court finds
that Plaintiff had "ample opportunity" to move to
compel discovery yet failed to do so. Indeed, the Parties
jointly filed a thirteen-page letter detailing several
discovery disputes prior to the close of discovery, and none
of the requests raised here were included.
justifies his delay because (1) "it seemed clear"
to Plaintiff that the Court anticipated additional discovery
after the motion for summary judgment was decided and (2)
Defendants are responsible for supplementing their responses
without prompting from Plaintiff. (Doc. No. 202 at 2-3.)
the undersigned was referred this case for General Pretrial
after the motion for summary judgment was decided, the
Plaintiffs assumption that the Court anticipated reopening
discovery is baseless. Plaintiff should have sought