Case Activity (26533)

1. Motion | Filed: August 07, 2026 | Entered: August 07, 2026 Wortham v. Total Transportation Corp. et al

   Labor: Fair Standards | New York Eastern

   Extension of Time to File Response/Reply

   MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 142 Memorandum in Support, 143 Affidavit in Support of Motion, 141 MOTION to Compel by 21st Ave Bus Corp., Bella Bus Corp., Brooklyn Transportation Corp., GVC II Inc., L & M Bus Corp., Maggies Paratransit Corp., Mat Bus Corp., a New York Corporation, Mat Bus Corp., a Pennsylvania Corporation, Pride Transportation Services Inc., Quality Transportation Corp., Total Transporation Corp., a Pennsylvania Corporation, Total Transportation Corp., a New York Corporation. (Quill, Timothy)

2. Order | Filed: August 07, 2026 | Entered: August 07, 2026 Shell Trademark Management B.V. v. The Individuals ans Business Entities Identified on Schedule A

   Trademark | New York Eastern

   Order(Other)

   ORDER: Since inception of this case nearly three years ago, the parties have required constant judicial intervention by the district court judge and the undersigned for many issues without regard by the parties for their obligations under Fed. R. Civ. P. 1, the undue burden that they have placed on the Court, or the judicial time and efforts that they have consumed (which should be dedicated to the many other litigants in other pending cases). The lengthy docket in this case makes these points abundantly clear.
   
   Most recently, on 7/29/2026, the undersigned conducted a motion conference that lasted for more than one hour, during which the Court ruled on numerous privilege and other discovery issues. See DE 199 . The parties then launched into another series of disputes less than 48 hours later, as they apparently believe there is a good faith basis for further judicial intervention. See DE 200 ; DE 201 . Consistent with the undersigned's inherent authority and the mandate of Fed. R. Civ. P. 1 (see generally New Falls Corp. v. Soni, No. 16-CV-06805, 2022 WL 17811448 (E.D.N.Y. Dec. 19, 2022)), the Court intends to address these issues on a schedule and in a format of the undersigned's choosing. The Court therefore ORDERS as follows:
   
   First, on 4/27/2026, the Court ordered the parties to submit a proposed schedule for expert discovery by 5/15/2026. They failed to do so and were subsequently directed to file their proposed expert discovery schedule by 5/26/2026. See 5/19/2026 Order. The parties then jointly proposed the following for expert discovery: "(2) service of Plaintiffs' expert reports by 7/22/2026; (3) service of Defendants' expert reports by 8/24/2026; (4) service of any expert discovery by 8/31/2026; (5) service of rebuttal expert reports by 9/28/2026; (6) completion of expert discovery by 11/2/2026." DE 194 at 1. The Court approved the parties' proposed expert discovery schedule on 6/16/2026. See DE 196 . Now, several weeks after the Court's approval of the parties' joint schedule, the parties dispute the meaning and scope of these very clear words. See DE 201 . In sum, Shell purports to retain the right to make "two potential separate technical expert disclosures" at some future point (id. at 3), while Oil Depot argues that Shell's apparent intent to make future expert disclosures violates the Court's 6/15/2026 Order (id. at 1-2). This incoherent letter fails to provide a clear request for relief, aside from the parties' usual (and unconvincing) finger pointing. The Court therefore DENIES WITHOUT PREJUDICE all relief requested in DE 201 . The Court's clear 6/15/2026 Order (DE 199 ) regarding expert discovery scheduling remains in place. The Court declines to provide an advisory opinion on any hypothetical expert disclosure issues raised in DE 201 . However, the parties are on notice that failure to comply with the Court's 6/15/2026 Order (DE 199 ) regarding expert discovery may result in the preclusion of evidence, striking of expert reports, and any other appropriate relief subject to future good faith motion practice.
   
   Second, as to Oil Depot's anticipated premotion letter seeking contempt for Shell's alleged violation of various orders issued by District Judge Joan M. Azrack (to whom this case was previously assigned), the parties' proposed briefing schedule (DE 26531 additional result(s)