Adams v. The Co Op City Department of Public Safety
- Barbara Moses
- 1:21-cv-02675
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 12
In Adams v. Co-Op City Department of Public Safety, Judge Moses kept the September 30 summary-judgment deadline and set deadlines for the parties’ papers.
Edward P. Adams and the defendants in the action were affected by the deadlines and briefing requirements; the order also concerned records sought from non-parties.
What happened
In Adams v. Co-Op City Department of Public Safety, party discovery had ended, but defendants were still collecting records from non-parties. Adams had repeatedly asked the court to set a firm deadline for summary-judgment motions.
Adams then asked to extend the September 30, 2024 deadline until defendants finished collecting records, stating that incomplete discovery hindered his ability to file an effective motion. Defendants did not oppose an extension but said they were ready to file on September 30 and asked that any extension apply to everyone.
The court required defendants to file by September 30 and set the remaining briefing schedule, including October 21 for Adams’s opposition and any cross-motion. Judge Barbara Moses also reminded Adams, who was representing himself, to submit required factual statements and supporting evidence.
The detailed version
- Adams v. The Co Op City Department of Public Safety · No. 1:21-cv-02675
- Barbara Moses
- Sept. 20, 2024
Background
The order concerns scheduling, not the merits of the underlying claims. The court stated that party discovery was complete. Defendants had spent more than two months trying to obtain documents from non-parties, including the Bronx Criminal Court, the Department of Motor Vehicles, and a hospital.
Adams had repeatedly objected to extensions of the deadline for summary-judgment motions and had asked the court to establish a firm filing date. On August 27, 2024, the court directed the parties to file their summary-judgment motions by September 30, 2024.
Request for an Extension
Adams later sought an extension of the September 30 deadline until defendants completed their non-party discovery. He stated that defendants’ incomplete discovery prevented him from filing an effective dispositive motion and cited Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(d)(1), which can allow additional time when a party cannot yet present facts needed to oppose summary judgment. The order stated that Adams did not explain his change in position. It also noted that the record showed no effort by Adams during discovery to obtain certain arrest, criminal-prosecution, motor-vehicle, or hospital records himself.
Defendants did not oppose an extension, but stated that they were ready to file on September 30 and asked that any further extension apply to all parties.
Ruling and Schedule
The court required defendants to file their moving papers by September 30, 2024, as previously scheduled. It set these additional deadlines:
- Adams’s opposition to defendants’ motion and any cross-motion for summary judgment were due October 21, 2024. - Defendants’ opposition to any cross-motion and optional additional support for their own motion were due November 11, 2024. - Adams’s optional reply supporting his cross-motion was due November 25, 2024.
The order also imposed page limits: 25 pages for principal briefs; 40 pages for Adams’s combined cross-motion and opposition brief; 30 pages for defendants’ combined opposition and reply brief; and 15 pages for Adams’s optional reply brief.
Judge Barbara Moses reminded Adams that a summary-judgment motion or opposition must include a statement identifying material facts that are undisputed or disputed under Local Civil Rule 56.1, supported by admissible evidence. The court attached a guide for people representing themselves. The order set the briefing schedule; it did not decide whether either side was entitled to summary judgment.
Read the full 12-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.