Kugler v. Potter, No. 1:2011cv00648 - Document 62 (E.D.N.Y. 2012)

Court Description: MEMORANDUM AND OPINION Deft responds that pltfs. motion is untimely because discovery has closed in this matter and she has not shown good cause for reopening discovery. (Doc. No. 60). The Court agrees with deft. Pltf. has had ample time to depose in dividuals and gather evidence about whether all limited duty employees were reassigned, and knew or should have known that information would be relevant to her claim moving forward, regardless of defts. representation at the pre-motion conference. Be cause "discovery should not be extended when a party had ample opportunity to pursue the evidence during discovery," Gotlin v. Lederman, 05-cv-3736, 2007 WL 1429431 at *3 (EDNY May 7, 2007) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted), Pltfs motion is DENIED. In light of the delay caused by pltfs. motion, the briefing schedule on Dfts. motion for summary judgment is hereby amended: Deft. shall serve his motion papers by 12/21/12; Pltf. shall serve her opposition papers by 1/21/13; Deft. shall serve his reply papers, if any, on pltf. and file his fully briefed motion by 2/6/13. Ordered by Judge Roslynn R. Mauskopf on 12/11/2012. (Greene, Donna)

Download PDF
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK -----------------------------------------------------------J( RAINA KUGLER, MEMORANDUM AND OPINION 11-CV-648 (RRM)(RLM) Plaintiff, - against JOHN E. POTTER, POSTMASTER GENERAL, et aI., FILED IN CLERK'S OFFICE US DISTRICT COURT E.D.N.Y. * Defendant. -----------------------------------------------------------J( ROSL YNN R. MAUSKOPF, United States District Judge. DEC 1 2 2012 * BROOKLYN OFFICE Plaintiff Raina Kugler asks the Court to stay the briefing schedule on Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment, as ordered by the Court on November 9,2012. (See Doc. Nos. 58, 59.) Kugler seeks the stay in order to depose a United States Postal Service employee who could rebut the Defendant's representation at the pre-motion conference held before this Court on November 9,2012 that all limited duty employees, like Plaintiff, were reassigned from the facility where Plaintiff also worked. Defendant responds that Plaintiff s motion is untimely because discovery has closed in this matter and she has not shown good cause for reopening discovery. (Doc. No. 60.) The Court agrees with Defendant. Plaintiff has had ample time to depose individuals and gather \ evidence about whether all limited duty!mployees were reassigned, and knew or should have known that information would be relevant to her claim moving forward, regardless of Defendant's representation at the pre-motion conference. Because "discovery should not be extended when a party had ample opportunity to pursue the evidence during discovery," Gotlin v. Lederman, 05-CV-3736, 2007 WL 1429431, at *3 (E.D.N.Y. May 7,2007) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted), Plaintiffs motion is DENIED. In light of the delay caused by Plaintiff s motion, the briefing schedule on Defendant's motion for summary judgment is hereby amended: Defendant shall serve his motion papers by December 21,2012; Plaintiff shall serve her opposition papers by January 21, 2013; Defendant shall serve his reply papers, if any, on Plaintiff and file his fully briefed motion by February 6, 2013. SO ORDERED. Dated: Brooklyn, New York December 11, 2012 s/Roslynn R. Mauskopf ROSL YNN R. MAUSKOPF United States District Judge

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.