Abdullah v. 28th Precinct
- John Koeltl
- 1:24-cv-00124
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 15
Abdullah v. City of New York — Judge Moses granted defendants’ motion compelling the self-represented plaintiff to answer written discovery.
Abdul H. Abdullah must provide the ordered discovery responses by December 20, 2024. Defendants may seek sanctions by January 3, 2025, if he fails to comply. The fact-discovery deadline for the case was extended to January 27, 2025.
What happened
In Abdullah v. City of New York, defendants asked the court to require Abdul H. Abdullah, who is representing himself, to respond to their written questions and document requests.
The court granted the motion. It ordered Abdullah to respond by December 20, 2024, warned that most objections could be lost if his responses were incomplete or late, and extended the fact-discovery deadline to January 27, 2025.
Judge Barbara Moses also said defendants could file a request for sanctions by January 3, 2025, if Abdullah failed to comply. Materials submitted during the discovery conference were filed under seal because they contained information that should have been redacted.
The detailed version
- Abdullah v. 28th Precinct · No. 1:24-cv-00124
- John Koeltl
- Nov. 21, 2024
Background
Defendants filed a letter-motion asking the court to compel, or order, the self-represented plaintiff to respond to defendants’ first set of interrogatories and requests for production of documents. The order states that the court addressed the reasons for its decision during a November 20, 2024 discovery conference.
Order
The court granted defendants’ motion. It ordered the plaintiff to respond no later than December 20, 2024, under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 33(b) and 34(b)(2). The plaintiff must answer each interrogatory separately and fully in writing under oath unless he objects. Any objection must state specific grounds. He must also respond in writing to every document request by producing the requested documents or stating specific grounds for the objection.
If the plaintiff does not respond adequately and completely by the deadline, all objections other than privilege objections will be deemed waived. If he does not comply with the order, defendants may file a sanctions motion by January 3, 2025. The order warns that substantial sanctions could be imposed, including dismissal of the case, if the plaintiff fails to prosecute the action or comply with court orders.
Other directions
The court extended the deadline to complete fact discovery to January 27, 2025. It filed under seal documents that the parties had submitted during the conference because some contained information that should have been redacted under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 5.2(a). The order also attached a discovery guide for self-represented litigants and provided information about a private legal-assistance project. The clerk was directed to close the motion at Docket 26, and defendants were directed to serve the order on the plaintiff and file proof of service.
Disposition
Judge Barbara Moses granted defendants’ letter-motion to compel. This discovery order did not decide the underlying claims or defenses.
Read the full 15-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.