Vereen v. Scruggs

Page 1 of 3
UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT
DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT
NEW HAVEN DIVISION
In re:
Deidra M. Scruggs,
Debtor
Case No.: 25-30607 (AMN)
Chapter 7
Dairwood Vereen,
Plaintiff
v.
Deidra M. Scruggs,
Defendant
Adv. Proceeding No. 25-03007 (AMN)
1

Re:
2
AP-ECF Nos. 47, 51
AMENDED MEMORANDUM OF DECISION AND ORDER
GRANTING MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME, I N PART
In January 2026, the Court set a June 15, 2026, trial date for this adversary
proceeding. After plaintiff Dairwood Vereen’s (“Mr. Vereen”) counsel withdrew, the Court
continued the trial date to August 4, 2026, with Mr. Vereen’s consent. On June 23, 2026,
the Court entered a Pre-Trial Scheduling Order (AP-ECF No. 47 is the “PTO”) setting a
July 29, 2026, deadline for filing lists of witnesses, exhibits and other pretrial items, in
anticipation of the agreed-upon August 4, 2026, trial date. On July 28, 2026, one day
before the deadline to file witness and exhibit lists, Mr. Vereen filed a Motion to Extend
Time (AP-ECF No. 51 is the “Motion”) seeking a three-month extension of the trial date
1
The only change made in this Amended Memorandum of Decision and Order was to correct the
initials in the caption of the case.
2
“ECF No.” refers to the document number on the court’s electronic case filing docket for the main
Chapter 7 case, Case No. 25-30607. “AP-ECF No.” refers to the document number on the court’s electronic
case filing docket for the adversary proceeding case, Adversary Proceeding No. 25-03007.
Case 25-03007 Doc 63 Filed 08/05/26 Entered 08/05/26 13:13:43 Page 1 of 3

Page 2 of 3

and pre-trial deadlines, but included no evidence supporting the request. Mr. Vereen
argued in the Motion that he is unable to proceed as scheduled due to anxiety about the
case, and he requested additional time to obtain certain unspecified documents. The
Court entered a scheduling order advising the parties that the trial date would be used to
address the request for additional time, and identified four alternate trial dates that would
be discussed during the August 4
th
status conference. AP-ECF No. 56.
At 9:59 a.m., on August 4, 2026 – one minute before the commencement of the
10:00 a.m. status conference -- the Clerk of Court received a doctor’s note filed by the
Plaintiff in support of the Motion. ECF No. 58. The note does not provide any specific
information as to what timing would best facilitate the Plaintiff’s condition, instead stating
simply that proceeding on August 4
th
was not advised. The Court realized the note had
been filed midway through the status conference and sealed it due to the personal
medical information it contained.
A continuance may be denied if granting it would not allow the moving party to
introduce additional information that would progress the matter forward, among other
reasons. Wells Fargo, N.A. v. Speer (In re Speer), 2015 Bankr. LEXIS 2705, 8 (Bankr. D.
Conn. 2015). In this determination, courts may consider the value of the additional
evidence compared to the cost of delay, and whether the requesting party has acted with
proper diligence in obtaining this information. In re Litwok, 246 B.R. 1, 9 (E.D.N.Y. 2000).
Other factors include the reasons presented in support of the continuance, the
inconvenience to the court, and the utility of the continuance. United States v. Padilla-
Galarza, 175 F.4
th
48, 56-57 (1st Cir. 2026).
Case 25-03007 Doc 63 Filed 08/05/26 Entered 08/05/26 13:13:43 Page 2 of 3

Page 3 of 3
Trial judges have “considerable discretion in matters of scheduling and in seeing
that the trial is conducted in a fair, efficient, and orderly manner.” Grotto v. Herbert, 316
F.3d 198, 206 (2d Cir. 2003); see also Ungar v. Sarafite, 376 U.S. 575, 589 (1964).
Appellate courts review orders denying continuances for abuse of discretion and will not
find such abuse unless the denial is found to be both arbitrary and to have prejudiced the
defendant. In re Jean-Francois, 516 B.R. 699, 703 (E.D.N.Y. 2014); United States v.
O’Connor, 650 F.3d 839, 854 (2d Cir. 2011) (quoting United States v. Beverly, 5 F.3d 633,
641 (2d Cir. 1993)).
Based upon Mr. Vereen’s presentation at the August 4
th
status conference, the
current procedural posture of the case, Mr. Vereen’s level of participation in this case to
date, the fact that discovery has been completed, and in consideration of the note filed at
AP-ECF No. 58, the Court finds a three-month extension of time is not a reasonably
necessary accommodation and that the cost of further delay outweighs the potential value
of any additional information Mr. Vereen may obtain.
There is no evidence that a three-month continuance would serve the interests of
justice. However, the Court will grant a three-week extension and continue the trial to
August 24, 2026, to permit the Plaintiff additional time to finalize his witness and exhibit
lists and to prepare for the trial.
A separate Amended Pre-Trial Scheduling Order will enter extending the various
pre-trial deadlines proportionately.
Accordingly, it is hereby
ORDERED: The Motion (AP-ECF No. 51) is GRANTED IN PART, and the trial will
be continued to August 24, 2026, at 10:00 a.m.
Case 25-03007 Doc 63 Filed 08/05/26 Entered 08/05/26 13:13:43 Page 3 of 3