Hopson v. Research Foundation for Mental Hygiene, Inc.
- Stewart Aaron
- 1:22-cv-05617
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In Hopson v. Research Foundation for Mental Hygiene, Judge Aaron ordered Plaintiff to answer discovery by July 20, warning noncompliance could lead to dismissal.
Fabian Hopson, the self-represented plaintiff, was ordered to respond to Research Foundation for Mental Hygiene, Inc.’s interrogatories and document requests by July 20, 2024. The defendant was affected because the order required the plaintiff to provide the requested discovery.
What happened
Hopson v. Research Foundation for Mental Hygiene, Inc. concerns the plaintiff’s failure to respond to the defendant’s written questions and requests for documents. The opinion does not address the underlying claims.
The defendant told the court that the plaintiff had not met a June 28 deadline set in an earlier court order. The plaintiff was representing himself.
The court ordered the plaintiff to follow the earlier discovery order by July 20, 2024. Judge Stewart D. Aaron warned that failing to comply could result in dismissal for disobeying discovery orders or failing to pursue the case, but this order did not dismiss the case.
The detailed version
- Hopson v. Research Foundation for Mental Hygiene, Inc. · No. 1:22-cv-05617
- Stewart Aaron
- July 3, 2024
Background
The court received a July 3, 2024 letter from Research Foundation for Mental Hygiene, Inc. stating that Fabian Hopson had not responded to its interrogatories and document requests. Interrogatories are written questions that must be answered in litigation. The response deadline was June 28, 2024, under the court’s May 17, 2024 order.
Order
The court ordered Hopson to comply with the May 17 discovery order no later than July 20, 2024. The court warned that failure to comply could result in dismissal of the case for failure to obey discovery orders or failure to prosecute, citing Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 37 and 41(b). The court arranged for a copy of the order to be emailed to Hopson, who was representing himself.
What the Order Did Not Decide
The order did not dismiss the case, decide the underlying claims, or award relief to either party. It required compliance with discovery and warned of a possible future dismissal. Judge Stewart D. Aaron signed the order.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.