Sabino v. Port Authority Police Department

Opinion

USDC SDNY DOCUMENT ELECTRONICALLY FILED UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DOC 2: SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK DATE FILED: 11/21/2024 SAUL SABINO, Plaintiff, 21-CV-5731 (JGK) (BCM) -against- ORDER PORT AUTHORITY POLICE DEPARTMENT, et al., Defendants.

BARBARA MOSES, United States Magistrate Judge. Plaintiff has requested a "second status conference" (see Dkt. 195), but does not disclose what substantive relief, if any, he seeks. Consequently, plaintiff's application is DENIED without prejudice. If plaintiff renews his request for a conference, he must explain the purpose of the conference and advise the Court what order or other judicial action he seeks. If plaintiff seeks leave to conduct depositions, notwithstanding that the deadline to complete fact discovery has passed, he must demonstrate "good cause" for the Court to reopen the discovery period. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4). To demonstrate good cause, a party must show that he acted with "diligence" in attempting to comply with the existing scheduling order. Ramchandani v. CitiBank Nat'l Ass'n, 616 F. Supp. 3d 353, 357 (S.D.N.Y. 2022); Ritchie Risk-Linked Strategies Trading (Ireland), Ltd. v. Coventry First LLC, 282 F.R.D. 76, 79 (S.D.N.Y. 2012). The burden of demonstrating good cause rests with the movant. Ritchie Risk-Linked Strategies Trading, 282 F.R.D. at 79. Dated: New York, New York November 21, 2024 SO ORDERED. Calc BARBARA MOSES ts” United States Magistrate Judge