Motion | Filed: July 02, 2026
| Entered: July 02, 2026
Cervantes v. CRST International, Inc. et al
Labor: Other | Iowa Northern
In Limine
MOTION in Limine by Plaintiffs Anthony Cervantes, Mike Cross. (Attachments: # 1 Brief ISO Motion, # 2 Declaration of Rebecca King ISO Motion, # 3 Exhibit 1. Scheduling Conference Transcript, # 4 Exhibit 2. Parties' June 2026 Email Correspondence, # 5 Exhibit 3. Parties' February and March 2026 Email Correspondence, # 6 Exhibit 4. Parties' June 15th and 16th Emails with Judicial Assistant) (King, Rebecca)
Order | Filed: July 01, 2026
| Entered: July 01, 2026
Li et al v. Greatcare, Inc. et al
Labor: Fair Standards | New York Southern
Order on Motion for Leave to File Document
ORDER denying 26 Letter Motion for Leave to File Document. On June 25, 2026, Defendant GreatCare, Inc. ("GreatCare") filed a letter motion requesting that discovery be reopened and that Plaintiffs be ordered to produce W-2 or 1099 forms, pay stubs, bank statements, tax returns, and other earnings-related documents. (ECF No. 234) On June 26, 2026, Plaintiffs filed an opposition to the letter motion. (ECF No. 235) That opposition failed to comply with Rule II.c of the Courts Individual Rules and Practices because it exceeded the page limit for submissions concerning discovery disputes. On June 28, 2026, GreatCare filed a motion seeking leave to file a reply or, in the alternative, to strike Plaintiffs'opposition based on Plaintiffs' failure to comply with the Courts rules. (ECF No. 236)GreatCare's motion at ECF No. 236 is DENIED. Additionally, Plaintiffs are advised that future failures to comply with the Court's Individual Rules and Practices may result in noncompliant submissions being stricken. After careful consideration, GreatCare's underlying motion to reopen discovery is DENIED. Under, Rule 16 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a scheduling order "may be modified only for good cause and with the judge's consent." Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4). The burden falls on the moving party to establish good cause, and as the Second Circuit clarified in Holmes v. Grubman, "whether good cause exists turns on the diligence of the moving party." 568 F.3d 329, 335 (2d Cir. 2009). Although the requested documents are relevant, GreatCare has not demonstrated good cause to further delay this action by reopening discovery after briefing for summary judgment is already underway. GreatCare had ample opportunity during the course of this litigation to seek the materials it now requests. Indeed, from the early stages of the case, GreatCare has emphasized the importance of these documents, yet it never timely moved to compel their production. Accordingly, GreatCare's lack of diligence in pursuing this discovery forecloses its request to obtain the materials now. See Trebor Sportswear Co. v. The Limited Stores, Inc., 865 F.2d 506, 511 (2d Cir. 1989) (denying further discovery when the party had a "fully adequate opportunity for discovery"); Burlington Coat Factory Warehouse Corp. v. Esprit De Corp., 769 F.2d 919, 927 (2d Cir. 1985) (denying plaintiff's request to reopen discovery when it had "ample time in which to pursue the discovery that it now claims is essential"). Notwithstanding the above, to the extent the documents requested are documents that Plaintiffs intend to rely on at trial and/or that were described in their initial disclosures but not produced, Plaintiffs are advised that a failure to have produced such documents will result in their not being able to introduce them at trial or on summary judgment. With fact discovery now closed, the parties shall file a joint letter by July 15, 2026, advising the Court whether they wish to schedule a settlement conference. The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to terminate the motion at ECF No. 236. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Magistrate Judge Katharine H. Parker on 7/1/2026) (ar)