*1 Currently pending before this Court is a motion filed by defendant Lens.com, on August 5, 2020, to vacate a portion of the Court's ruling of July 6, 2020, which granted plaintiff Alcon's motion to compel and directed Lens.com to produce, on a rolling basis by August 6, 2020, certain purchase orders, invoices and communications with suppliers. See Letter Motion to Vacate Order (Aug. 5, 2020), DE #259; see also Minute Entry and Order (July 6, 2020) (“7/6/20 Minute Entry”), DE #246. Lens.com argues that its recent withdrawal of certain antitrust counterclaims renders the aforesaid discovery irrelevant. Alcon opposes the motion and moves for fees, citing Lens.com's “pattern of discovery misconduct and gamesmanship.” Response in Opposition (Aug. 10, 2020) (“Alcon Response”) at 1, DE #262. According to Alcon, the disputed documents “are relevant to numerous affirmative defenses still in the case[.]” Id. at 2. As discussed below, Lens.com's motion is denied.

As an initial matter, Lens.com's “motion to vacate” is essentially a belated motion for reconsideration, which should have been filed within 14 days of the entry of the Court's 7/6/20 Minute Entry, or by July 20, 2020. See E.D.N.Y. Local Civ. R. 6.3. That Lens.com opted to wait until August 5 to drop some of its counterclaims, see Notice of Voluntary Dismissal (Aug. 5, 2020), DE #258 -- more than seven months after the Court urged it to do so or risk correspondingly broad discovery obligations, see Minute Entry and Order (Jan. 3, 2020), DE #173 -- does not excuse the tardiness of its challenge. Lens.com's delay in announcing its decision to drop those claims is particularly galling, in that its announcement came on the night before the one-month deadline for completing the document production that the Court had ordered on July 6.

In any event, Lens.com's belated abandonment of certain counterclaims is, simply put, too little, too late. As Alcon persuasively argues, the documents at issue are relevant to various affirmative defenses that remain in the case, see Alcon Response at 2-3, including but not limited to one in which Lens.com asserts “Unclean Hands” (citing “Alcon's anticompetitive and unlawful restraint of trade activities fully set forth in Lens.com's counterclaims”), another titled “Trademark Misuse” (“Alcon has used its trademarks to violate the antitrust laws of the United States”), as well as an affirmative defense asserting “Bad Faith” (“Alcon's claims are brought in bad faith and are an inexcusable attempt to control competition and limit the sales of Alcon's products by online retailers like Lens.com”), see Defendant Lens.com's Second Amended Answer, Defenses and Counterclaims (Jan. 21, 2020) at 25, 27-28, 30, DE #174-1, DE #254. To be sure, much of the discussion at the two judicial hearings concerning this particular discovery dispute centered on the breadth of Lens.com's counterclaims and the relevance of the records sought to those counterclaims. Nevertheless, even with the dismissal of those counterclaims, Lens.com's allegations of Alcon's anticompetitive activities remain in the case. Therefore, the Court declines to modify its July 6 ruling.

*2 At the hearing on July 6, this Court set an outside deadline of August 6 for the completion of Lens.com's production, and ordered disclosure to be made on a rolling basis. See 7/6/20 Minute Entry at 2. In particular, the Court warned that it did not “want this to be an invitation to push this [production] out to the beginning of August....” Transcript of Proceedings held on July 6, 2020 (docketed on 7/9/20) at 163-64, DE #248. Despite this admonition, and without seeking a stay of the Court's directive and deadline, on the literal eve of that deadline, Lens.com delivered only its surprise announcement and none of the outstanding purchase orders, invoices and communications with suppliers. The Court will countenance no further delays in this case. Lens.com is directed to complete its production, on pain of sanctions, by August 21, 2020.

Alcon's cross-motion for an award of attorneys’ fees, see Alcon Response at 3, is procedurally defective, see Order (Mar. 28, 2019), and is denied without prejudice.

SO ORDERED.