Try our Advanced Search for more refined results
Searching dockets in Brown Gaujean x
Alert me of new activity
All Case Activity Alerts Include: Answers, Appeals, Complaints, Motions, Orders, Trial Notes
Environmental Matters | New York Western
Mail Returned
Mail Returned as Undeliverable, unable to forward. 289 Text Order, sent to James Nail. (DMK)
Order on Motion for Extension of Time to Complete Discovery
TEXT ORDER denying Plaintiffs' Motion for Extension of Time to Complete Discovery, and more specifically, to provide their expert medical reports (ECF No. 285 ). "A finding of good cause depends on the diligence of the moving party." Parker v. Columbia Pictures Industries, 204 F.3d 326, 340 (2d Cir. 2000). The undersigned finds that Plaintiffs failed to demonstrate good cause because they did not show diligence in seeking the deadline extension. First, the undersigned finds that Plaintiffs were aware that both Defendants had filed motions for judgment on the pleadings at the time Plaintiffs agreed to the present deadline for expert disclosure and that Plaintiffs did not request that the deadline be made contingent upon Judge Vacca's decisions on the pending motions for judgment on the pleadings but rather requested that the deadline be 120 days after Judge Vacca rendered her decision on Defendant Waste Management of New York, LLC's motion to disqualify neutral expert (see Eleventh Amended Scheduling Order, ECF No. 254). Further, Plaintiffs failed to demonstrate diligence because they did not provide any evidence of the steps they had taken to meet the deadline or why, even though they represent that they have identified medical experts, they were "concerned that it may not be possible to examine all of the health impacted Plaintiffs in the remaining two-month timeframe" (ECF No. 285-1 paragraph 18) and why they had not begun Plaintiffs' examination in this respect sooner. Further, Plaintiffs have not indicated that granting their requested extension would not prejudice Defendants. If, indeed, Judge Vacca denies Defendants' pending motions, the case would presumably be delayed while "health impacted" Plaintiffs obtained expert medical opinions. For these reasons, the undersigned denies Plaintiffs' motion (ECF No. 285). SO ORDERED. Signed by Hon. Mark W. Pedersen on March 2, 2026. (VSG)
In the legal profession, information is the key to success. You have to know what’s happening with clients, competitors, practice areas, and industries. Law360 provides the intelligence you need to remain an expert and beat the competition.
TRY LAW360 FREE FOR SEVEN DAYS
Already a subscriber? Click here to login
Email (NOTE: Free email domains not supported)
First Name
Last Name
Job Title
Phone
PLEASE NOTE: A verification email will be sent to your address before you can access your trial.
Password (at least 8 characters required)
Confirm Password
Law360 UK may contact you in your professional capacity with information about our other products, services and events that we believe may be of interest.You’ll be able to update your communication preferences via the unsubscribe link provided within our communications.We take your privacy seriously. Please see our Privacy Policy.