Peconic Baykeeper, Inc. v. Suffolk County, Inc.

Full title: PECONIC BAYKEEPER, INC., KEVIN McALLISTER, ALFRED CHIOFOLO, Plaintiffs, v…

Court: United States District Court, E.D. New York

Date published: Mar 6, 2006

CV 04-4828 (ADS)(ARL) (E.D.N.Y. Mar. 6, 2006)

Opinion

CV 04-4828 (ADS)(ARL).

March 6, 2006

ORDER

ARLENE LINDSAY, Magistrate Judge

Before the court is the plaintiffs' application dated February 24, 2006, requesting that the court reconsider its February 14^th order, which denied in part the plaintiffs' request to extend the discovery deadlines. By way of background, the plaintiffs requested that all discovery be extended to April 21, 2006 in light of Judge Spatt's order that extended the time frame of vector control activity information to be produced to the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs indicated that the information would be produced by mid-March (forty-five days from February 2^nd) but, nonetheless, requested an additional five weeks to take the continued deposition of Dominick Ninivaggi. It was the court's view that an additional five weeks was not necessary. Accordingly, the court directed the defendants to produce the outstanding discovery by March 17, 2006, and to take the continued deposition by March 31, 2006.

The plaintiffs contend that the court's order was a mistake. They argue that it will take longer to review the documents to prepare for the deposition than it should take the defendants to produce the documents. Moreover, the plaintiffs argue that they may wish to depose additional people based on information contained in the additional documents. The defendants oppose the motion. In their opposition, the defendants have indicated that additional time is not necessary because (1) the documents will be produced by March 17, 2006, (2) the parties have agreed to limit the documents to be produced despite Judge Spatt's order and (3) they have scheduled the deposition of Mr. Ninivaggi for March 31, 2006.

The court agrees that its February 16^th order was not a mistake and that no additional time should be needed to produce the outstanding documents or take the continued deposition. Moreover, the court will not extend the deadline on the basis of the plaintiffs' statement that they may want to take additional depositions based on the information produced. Although Judge Spatt extended the time frame for the production, the plaintiffs were already in receipt of the type of information they will be receiving in the supplemental production and the court believes that it is unlikely that additional depositions will be warranted at this late date. Accordingly, the plaintiffs' motion for reconsideration is denied.

SO ORDERED.