Anyata v. United States
- Gregory Woods
- 1:22-cv-02405
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Anyata v. United States, Judge Moses ordered discovery responses, a text-and-email search, and clarification about a son's deposition.
Sandra Anyata, the United States, and the Montefiore defendants, particularly their discovery obligations and upcoming case-management deadlines.
What happened
In Anyata v. United States, Sandra Anyata, the United States, and the Montefiore defendants participated in a status conference about discovery. Anyata appeared by telephone with her lawyer; the United States appeared through its lawyer; and a lawyer for the Montefiore defendants appeared without having formally entered the case.
The court ordered Anyata to verify her initial and supplemental answers to written questions, provide an updated response about requested text messages and emails, and tell the defendants whether her son would need a subpoena to appear for a deposition. The court also said she must conduct a reasonable and diligent search before stating that no responsive messages or emails exist.
The court set another status conference for September 17, 2024, and required a joint progress letter by September 10. Judge Moses issued this discovery and scheduling order; the opinion does not decide the underlying claims.
The detailed version
- Anyata v. United States · No. 1:22-cv-02405
- Gregory Woods
- May 30, 2024
Background
The court held a status conference in Sandra Anyata's case against the United States of America and other defendants. Anyata appeared by telephone with counsel of record. The United States appeared through counsel, and Michael L. Burke appeared for the Montefiore defendants, although he had not yet formally entered an appearance.
Order
For reasons stated during the conference, the court ordered Anyata to complete three tasks by June 13, 2024:
- Verify her initial and supplemental interrogatory responses, meaning her written answers to the defendants' questions, as required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 33(b)(5).
- Serve an updated written response to the defendants' request for relevant text messages and emails, as required by Rule 34(b)(2)(B) and (C). The court explained that the defendants were entitled to know whether responsive materials were being withheld because of objections or whether none were within Anyata's possession, custody, or control. Before stating that no responsive materials exist, Anyata must conduct a reasonable and diligent search. The court noted that it could require an affidavit from her counsel if there were reason to doubt that the search had occurred.
- Tell the defendants whether her son, who is not a party, would need a subpoena ordering him to appear for a deposition.
Further Proceedings and Effect
Judge Barbara Moses scheduled another status conference for September 17, 2024, at 10:00 a.m. The parties had to submit a joint status letter by September 10 describing the progress of discovery and settlement efforts. If no discovery disputes remained, they could ask to hold the conference by telephone. This order addressed discovery and case scheduling; it did not decide the merits of the parties' underlying claims.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.