Next Millennium Realty LLC et al v. Utility Manufacturing Co., Inc. et al

1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
--------------------------------------------------------------------X
NEXT MILLENNIUM REALTY LLC and 101 FROST
STREET ASSOCIATES, L.P.,
Plaintiffs,
ORDER
-against- 	22-CV-02529 (OEM) (JMW)
UTILITY MANUFACTURING CO., INC. and NEST
EQUITIES, INC.,
Defendants.
--------------------------------------------------------------------X
A P P E A R A N C E S:
Sadhanand D. Devaprasad
The West Firm PLLC
Peter Kiernan Plaza
575 Broadway, 2nd Floor
Albany, NY 12207
Attorney for Plaintiffs
Joseph F. Castiglione
Dean S. Sommer
Young Sommer LLC
500 Federal Street, 5th Floor
Troy, NY 12180
Attorneys for Defendants
WICKS, Magistrate Judge:
Plaintiffs Next Millennium Realty LLC and 101 Frost Street Associates, L.P., (the
“Plaintiffs”) commenced this action against the Defendants, Utility Manufacturing Co., Inc., and
Nest Equities, Inc., (collectively, the “Defendants”) alleging claims pursuant to the
Comprehensive Environmental Response Compensation and Liability Act (“CERCA”), 42
U.S.C. § 9601 et seq., for contribution and indemnification for past and future response costs
under Sections 107 and 113(f) of CERCLA; and declaratory judgment under Section 107 of
2/11/2026
FILED
CLERK
U.S. DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
LONG ISLAND OFFICE
Case 2:22-cv-02529-OEM-JMW Document 51 Filed 02/11/26 Page 1 of 7 PageID #:
<pageID>

2
CERCLA and the Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2201. (See generally, ECF No. 1.)
Now before the Court is Plaintiffs’ Motion to Reopen Discovery (ECF No. 44), in which
Plaintiffs argue that they meet the requisite legal requirements and there is a good cause for
reopening further discovery. (Id.) Defendants oppose this application while seeking leave to re-
open only expert discovery. (ECF No. 48.) In turn, Plaintiffs argue that the opposition only
further supports their position, and at the same time, Plaintiff seeks preclusion of Defendants’
untimely expert disclosure1. (ECF No. 50.) Discovery in this action has been deemed closed as
of December 31, 2024. (See Electronic Order dated 5/13/2024.) Prior to the instant application,
no motions to extend discovery deadlines or requests for a stay of discovery were before the
Court. For reasons that follow, Plaintiffs’ Motion to Reopen Discovery (ECF No. 44) and
Defendants’ Cross-Motion to Reopen Discovery (ECF No. 48) are DENIED.
THE LEGAL FRAMEWORK AND DISCUSSION
As an initial matter, fact and expert discovery in this case concluded on December 31,
2024. (See Electronic Order dated 05/13/2024.) Since the conclusion of discovery, Plaintiffs
represent that the parties have engaged in ongoing settlement negotiations, however, these
discussions were never communicated to the Court and neither party moved for a stay during the
duration of this action.
“A party seeking to reopen discovery bears the burden of establishing good cause and
discovery should not be extended when there was ample opportunity to pursue the evidence
during discovery.” Moroughan v. Cnty. of Suffolk, 320 F. Supp. 3d 511, 514 (E.D.N.Y. 2018)
(internal quotations and citations omitted). “[W]here there has been ‘a fully adequate opportunity
1 As noted in the Court’s conclusion, the portion as to relief sought on precluding any expert disclosures,
is denied with leave to renew. Any renewed motion shall be filed in accordance with the undersigned’s
Individual Practice Rules, and not by letter motion. The Court will then, at the appropriate time, make a
ruling on that issue.
Case 2:22-cv-02529-OEM-JMW Document 51 Filed 02/11/26 Page 2 of 7 PageID #:
<pageID>

3
for discovery’ the trial court may consider whether additional discovery would yield dispositive
evidence.” Jacobs v. New York City Dept. of Educ., No. 11-CV-5058 (MKB) (RML), 2015 WL
7568642, at *3 (E.D.N.Y. Nov. 24, 2015) (emphasis added) (quoting Trebor Sportswear Co.,
Inc. v. The Limited Stores, Inc., 865 F.2d 506, 511-12 (2d Cir. 1989)). Courts apply a six-part test
when faced with an eleventh-hour request to reopen discovery: “1) whether trial is imminent, 2)
whether the request is opposed, 3) whether the nonmoving party would be prejudiced, 4) whether
the moving party was diligent in obtaining discovery within the guidelines established by the
court, 5) the foreseeability of the need for additional discovery in light of the time allowed for
discovery by the district court, and 6) the likelihood that the discovery will lead to relevant
evidence.” Moroughan, 320 F. Supp. 3d at 515. Addressing these factors militates against
reopening discovery.
First, though a trial date has not been set, the Court previously set dates for the parties to
file a Joint Pre-Trial Order (“JPTO”) and scheduled a final pre-trial conference. See Su v. Versa
Cret Contracting Co., No. 21-cv-05697 (JMA) (JMW), 2024 WL 1704695, at *5 (E.D.N.Y. Apr.
19, 2024) (concluding the first factor weighed against reopening discovery where the parties
were directed to submit joint pretrial orders). Indeed, the parties were aware of this as evidenced
by their requests to extend such deadlines. (See ECF No. 43.) Accordingly, this factor weighs
against re-opening discovery.
Second and third, the parties are clearly in disagreement regarding the re-opening of
discovery, as Plaintiffs seek to re-open both fact and expert discovery, while Defendants seek to
re-open expert discovery. Defendants oppose Plaintiffs’ request, raising issues that good cause
has not been shown and the Plaintiffs could have been conducting additional discovery over the
past two years but voluntarily did not. (ECF No. 48 at 6.) This leads the Court to find potential
Case 2:22-cv-02529-OEM-JMW Document 51 Filed 02/11/26 Page 3 of 7 PageID #:
<pageID>

4
prejudice to Defendants if fact discovery were to now be reopened. Although both parties seek to
reopen discovery in some fashion, the application need not be granted. See Miehle-Kellogg v.
Santanello, No. 19-CV-4943 (GRB) (JMW), 2025 WL 3299428, at *2 (E.D.N.Y. Oct. 23, 2025)
(denying joint application to re-open discovery as discovery was deemed closed “years ago” and
there was no new newly discovered information). Thus, this factor weighs against re-opening
discovery. See Griffin v. County of Suffolk, No. 23-cv-05032 (NJC) (JMW), 2025 WL 1073238,
at *2 (E.D.N.Y. Mar. 11, 2025) (referencing Cutrone v. BJ's Wholesale Club, Inc., No. 21-cv-
00787 (OEM) (LGD), 2023 WL 8792674, at *2 (E.D.N.Y. Dec. 19, 2023) (denying the motion
to reopen discovery where, among other factors, the opposition raised the underlying prejudice
that would result from the court reopening fact and expert discovery)). As Defendants point out,
extensive document discovery has already been completed, and reopening discovery for fact
depositions would be time consuming, expensive for the parties, and further delay an already
three-year-long case. (See ECF No. 48 at 10.).
Fourth, Plaintiffs were strangers to diligence in obtaining this information during the fact
discovery phase considering the information was available during the discovery period. Neither
party requested a stay and it has been well over a year since the discovery period closed. Eisner
v. United States, No. 21-CV-06834 (OEM) (ARL), 2025 WL 638547, at *11 n.12 (E.D.N.Y.
Feb. 26, 2025) (denying any request to reopen discovery) (citing and discussing Glowczenski v.
Taser Int'l Inc., 594 F. App'x 723, 725 (2d Cir. 2014) (“denial of motion to reopen discovery
upheld where plaintiff waited nearly six months after learning its originally-disclosed expert
would be excluded before moving to reopen discovery to introduce a substitute expert”)); see
also Caicedo v. Home Depot U.S.A., Inc, No. 21-CV-2219 (OEM) (CLP), 2026 WL 25367, at
*11 (E.D.N.Y. Jan. 5, 2026) (summary judgment motion) (“Plaintiff thus had ample time to seek
Case 2:22-cv-02529-OEM-JMW Document 51 Filed 02/11/26 Page 4 of 7 PageID #:
<pageID>

5
to reopen discovery to question Kelly on these records, if he desired to do so. But he did not.”)
Although Plaintiffs argue that they acted diligently in light of both ongoing settlement
negotiations and the recent change in position of defense counsel, these negotiations, again, were
never communicated to the Court. (See ECF No. 50 at 5-6.) Plaintiffs further argue that they
deferred seeking discovery during the pendency of the Rule 12 (c) motion. (See id.) However,
the filing of a dispositive motion does not by itself halt discovery, as it must be accompanied by
a court granted stay. See Gagliano v. United States, 24-CV-07930 (SJB) (JMW), 2025 WL
1104042, at *2 (E.D.N.Y. Apr. 14, 2025) (citing Weitzner v. Sciton, Inc., No. 25-CV-2533 (SLT)
(MDG), 2006 WL 3827422, at *1 (E.D.N.Y. Dec. 27, 2006) (“the filing of a dispositive motion
in and of itself does not halt discovery obligations.”)). Here, neither party requested a stay of
discovery at any juncture.
Fifth, Plaintiffs had more than adequate time to pursue the now-requested discovery. As
previously discussed, the discovery deadline was December 31, 2024. Plaintiffs argue that they
could not foresee the need for additional discovery until the Defendants’ changed their position
on settlement on November 11, 2025. (See ECF No. 50 at 6.) Defendants argue that extensive
paper discovery has been completed, and the scientific data that is material for this case has
already been generated. (See ECF No. 48 at 11). Plaintiffs neglect to provide a good cause
justification for why they did not complete the discovery prior to the deadline over a year ago.
Therefore, since the discovery now sought could have been pursued long ago, this factor weighs
heavily against Plaintiffs. See Griffin, 2025 WL 1073238, at *2.
Sixth, it is questionable at best whether the discovery Defendants seek will lead to
relevant evidence. Plaintiffs seek depositions and expert disclosure and they argue that these are
essential to the “highly fact-specific issues” in this action. (See ECF No. 50 at 7.) Defendants
Case 2:22-cv-02529-OEM-JMW Document 51 Filed 02/11/26 Page 5 of 7 PageID #:
<pageID>

6
argue that this case is about data, and additional fact discovery will not alter the data. (See ECF
No. 48 at 11.) Defendants additionally argue that this case is based upon the Plaintiffs own
actions, which they should already have knowledge and documentation on. (Id.) Plaintiffs had
plenty of time to conduct depositions during discovery if they felt it was so vital to the case. The
fact that the discovery deadline passed over a year ago, coupled with the allegation of the data-
driven nature of this case, results in the sixth factor weighing against the parties.
Rule 1 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure commands that the rules “should be
construed, administered, and employed by the court and the parties to secure the just, speedy,
and inexpensive determination of every action and proceeding.” Reopening discovery under the
circumstances presented here run far afoul of that clear mandate. Accordingly, because the
parties have not met their burden in demonstrating good cause to re-open discovery and
considering all factors, the Court declines the invitation to do so.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiffs’ Motion to Reopen Discovery (ECF No. 44) and
Defendants’ Cross-Motion to Reopen Discovery (ECF No. 48) are DENIED, and discovery
remains closed. In addition, the Court rules as follows:
(i) 	the portion of Plaintiffs’ opposition to preclude Defendants’ expert disclosure (see
ECF Nos. 50 at 8; 50-1) is denied with leave to renew on or before February 20,
2026. Any renewed motion on the preclusion issue shall be filed as a formal motion,
and not by letter motion pursuant to the undersigned’s Individual Practice Rules. (See
Rule 3.)
(ii) 	The parties shall appear for a Final Pretrial Conference on April 9, 2026, at 10:00
AM via the Court’s Video Zoom.
Case 2:22-cv-02529-OEM-JMW Document 51 Filed 02/11/26 Page 6 of 7 PageID #:
<pageID>

7
(iii) 	The parties shall further file a joint proposed pretrial order in compliance with the
Honorable Orelia E. Merchant’s Individual Rules, signed by counsel for each party on
or before April 2, 2026.
Dated: Central Islip, New York
February 11, 2026
S O 	O R D E R E D:
/S/James M. Wicks
JAMES M. WICKS
United States Magistrate Judge
- 	------------
Case 2:22-cv-02529-OEM-JMW Document 51 Filed 02/11/26 Page 7 of 7 PageID #:
<pageID>