Order | Filed: August 26, 2026
| Entered: August 26, 2026
Malewich et al v. Peninsula Insurance Bureau et al
Insurance | New York Eastern
Order on Motion to Compel
ORDER. The motion to compel at ECF No. 55 is granted in part and denied in part.
This case was removed in October 2024 from Queens County, ECF No. 1 , and an amended complaint was filed in November 2024, ECF No. 9 . Defendant Neptune Flood threatened to file a motion to dismiss; in response, another amended complaint was filed, ECF No. 35 ; but nonetheless, motion practice ensued, ECF No. 44 . In February 2026, the motion to dismiss was denied in part and granted in part. ECF No. 48 . Thus, the case is proceeding only on the breach-of-contract claims against Neptune Flood and the non-moving Defendants, Indian Harbor and Wright Flood. Although the motion to stay discovery was denied in November 2025, the Court only ordered preliminary discovery to proceed at that time. ECF Orders 11/7/2025, 11/18/2025. After the motion to dismiss was decided, the Court adopted the parties' proposed discovery deadlines, including a fact discovery deadline of 10/15/2026. ECF Order 4/1/2026. The Court stated: "Given the age of the case and the length of this extension, the parties should not expect that the Court will grant any further extensions unless unforeseeable events delay discovery and the parties can show due diligence." Id.
Only in July did Plaintiffs and Neptune Flood file a joint motion for a protective order, ECF Order 7/10/2026, which has been decided by a separate Order. At the same time, Defendant served requests for production of documents, requests for admission and interrogatories. ECF No. 55 at 1. Plaintiff did not substantively respond on the ground that Defendant Neptune Flood had not served the requests and interrogatories in time for Plaintiffs' responses to be due before the 7/31/2026 deadline. The Court finds Plaintiffs' position to be unreasonable. As a preliminary matter, although the Court understands Plaintiffs' counsel's personal commitments, their opposition was late, such that the Court could consider the motion to be unopposed. The Court will grant flexibility in the filing deadline, and it will accept Plaintiffs' opposition. The same reasonableness standard is applied to Defendant's discovery position. Given that the parties only filed their agreement as to confidentiality on the same day that the discovery requests were served, it was evident that the parties expected document discovery to continue beyond 7/31/2026. For example, the proposed confidentiality agreement unquestionably contemplates the exchange of documents and information from Plaintiffs, which is clear because among the confidential information described is "sensitive personal data," "medical and legal records," and "non-public criminal history," ECF No. 54 , all of which is material that would come from individual plaintiffs, not a corporate defendant. The Court notes that Plaintiffs' interpretation of the Court's document discovery deadline is not the only viable interpretation of the deadline; it could be that Plaintiffs were obliged to respond before 7/31/2026, but the Court need not decide that point given the first reason the Court grants Defendant's motion.
The Court deems Defendant's discovery requests to be timely served. Plaintiffs are ordered to respond to Defendant's interrogatories, requests for production of documents, and requests to admit by 9/10/2026. The Court rejects Defendant's request for a seven-day turnaround on the production as unreasonable. The Court considers 9/10/2026 to be a reasonable deadline because the evidentiary issues in this case have been obvious throughout the litigation, including with the issuance of the decision on the motion to dismiss, but Plaintiffs and their attorney should be allowed time to gather the documents and information.
The parties are urged to prepare their... (truncated)