Giuffre_Maxwell_Batch5_p00250.png

Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1330-17 Filed 01/05/24 Page 3 of 12 2011 WL 4407461, at *2) (collecting cases); Exp.-Imp. Bank of the U.S. v. Asia Pulp & Paper Co., 232 F.R.D. 103, 112 (S.D.N.Y. 2005) (same); see also Dash v. Seagate Tech. (US) Holdings, Inc., No. CV 13-6329 LDW AKT, 2015 WL 4257329, at *6 (E.D.N.Y. July 14, 2015) (refusing to reopen deposition where party neglected to or affirmatively opted not to inquire about information available at prior deposition and had or could obtain the information through other discovery devices). Here, Plaintiff's sole justification for an extraordinary third deposition are two irrelevant documents that are cumulative of information previously produced, covering topics on which Ms. Maxwell already has been deposed at length, relating to lines of inquiry covered in other written discovery that have been fully responded to, making reopening the deposition cumulative and duplicative. Moreover, Ms. Maxwell has offered to provide responses to specific questions in writing (despite the fact that discovery has closed) which is the least burdensome and less expensive means of obtaining responses to the limited inquiry proposed regarding the two documents. ARGUMENT A. The Motion is Untimely Pursuant to the Initial Scheduling Order entered in this matter, motions on discovery issues would not be considered after the date scheduled for disclosure of expert witnesses absent “showing of special circumstances.” See DE 13,42. By agreement of the parties and with approval of the court, that deadline was modified and occurred on September 8, 2016. No special circumstances exist to permit this additional discovery, well after the close of discovery on July 31, 2016. Plaintiff had the documents at issue in advance of September 8, 2016 and could have moved at any time between August 16, 2016 and September 8, but chose not to do so.