UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ---------------------------------------------------------------------- X : MASON TENDERS DISTRICT COUNCIL WELFARE : FUND, et al., : : 24-CV-10013 (JAV) Plaintiffs, : : ORDER -v- : MALCOLM PATRICK CORP., : : Defendant. : ---------------------------------------------------------------------- X JEANNETTE A. VARGAS, United States District Judge: On September 23, 2025, Plaintiffs filed a motion to compel Defendant Malcolm Patrick Corp. (“MPC”) to respond to Plaintiffs’ outstanding request for the production of documents and interrogatories, and to extend the fact discovery deadline from September 30, 2025, to November 28, 2025. ECF No. 16. This request was filed one week prior to the close of fact discovery. Plaintiffs’ letter details the ongoing discovery disputes between the parties, highlighting that Defendant has yet to produce a single document in response to discovery requests. Id. Defendant does not contest that it has failed to timely respond to discovery requests. ECF No. 17. Plaintiffs’ motion to compel responses to outstanding document demand and interrogatories is GRANTED. Defendant shall produce its responses to Plaintiffs’ document demands and interrogatories, including all documents responsive to the requests for the production of documents, by October 14, 2025. The parties’ request for an extension of time to complete discovery is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART. Discovery shall remain open for the limited purpose of requiring Defendant to respond to the outstanding discovery demands, as ordered above. See, e.g., Grochowski v. Phoenix Constr.,

, 86 (2d Cir. 2003) (noting that a “scheduling order shall not be modified except upon a showing of good cause,” which “depends on the diligence of the moving party” (internal quotation marks omitted)). The request for an extension of the discovery deadline is otherwise denied. The Case Management Plan entered in this case expressly states that “the parties should not anticipate extensions of the deadline for fact discovery.” ECF No. 16, ¶ 5(j). Additionally, the parties appeared for an Initial Pretrial Conference before this court on May 29, 2025, where this Court reiterated that deadlines set forth in this case are firm and that all discovery disputes should be raised in a timely manner. Yet Plaintiffs waited two months to raise the Defendant’s failure to respond to its discovery demands with the Court. Although the parties have attempted to resolve this dispute via alternative dispute resolution, the Court made clear that any settlement discussions would run on a parallel track to the entered discovery schedule. There has been no showing of good cause as to why the extension should be granted. The Clerk of the Court is directed to terminate ECF No. 16. SO ORDERED. ~~ tt af a °F roi, a ty Dated: October 1, 2025 HOUR □ KAD) — New York, New York JEANNETTE A. VARGAS United States District Judge