Rodriguez v. City Of New York
- Lewis Kaplan
- 1:23-cv-05531
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Rodriguez v. City of New York, Judge Ona T. Wang denied the City’s request to pause discovery while its motion to dismiss Rodriguez’s civil-rights claim remained pending.
The City of New York and Jose Rodriguez; discovery was not stayed by this order, and the City’s motion to dismiss remained undecided.
What happened
In Rodriguez v. City of New York, the City asked the court to stop all discovery until it ruled on the City’s motion to dismiss Jose Rodriguez’s only claim. The City argued that the claim was filed too late and was not adequately pleaded.
The City also argued that pausing discovery would avoid burdens and expenses involving events from the early 1980s. Rodriguez’s lawyer did not agree to the request.
Judge Ona T. Wang denied the City’s application to stay discovery. The order did not decide the City’s motion to dismiss.
The detailed version
- Rodriguez v. City Of New York · No. 1:23-cv-05531
- Lewis Kaplan
- June 26, 2024
Background
The City of New York asked the court to stay, or pause, all discovery until the court decided its motion to dismiss Rodriguez’s amended complaint. The City said its motion was made under Rule 12(c), which allows a party to seek judgment based on the pleadings. The City’s letter stated that Rodriguez’s only claim was a municipal-liability claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 concerning an alleged failure by his criminal appellate attorney to perfect an appeal from his 1981 criminal conviction.
The City’s arguments
The City argued that the claim was barred by the three-year limitations period because Rodriguez allegedly knew no later than April 2014 that the appeal had not been perfected. The City also argued that Rodriguez had not adequately pleaded the claim, had not shown causation, had not identified more than one incident, and had not alleged facts supporting the City’s liability.
The City further argued that discovery could be burdensome and expensive because the underlying criminal case dated to the early 1980s. It contended that discovery might be unnecessary if the motion to dismiss succeeded and that Rodriguez would not be prejudiced by a delay. The letter stated that Rodriguez’s counsel did not consent to the requested stay.
Ruling
Judge Ona T. Wang endorsed the application with the words: “Application DENIED. SO ORDERED.” The order denied the City’s request to stay discovery. It did not rule on the City’s motion to dismiss or decide whether Rodriguez’s claim was timely or adequately pleaded.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.