Dimps v. Taconic Correctional Facility

Background

Shirley Dimps filed a motion styled as a motion to compel. She asked the court to give her time to seek pro bono counsel, permit a pro bono attorney to assist with depositions, order the defendant to provide documents she believed were missing, and restore language to the caption identifying her as “the Local President of 176 at Taconic C.F.” The defendant treated the filing as a request to reconsider rulings made at a December 2, 2024 conference. Dimps replied that she was not objecting to the court’s denial of an earlier request but was asking for time to obtain an attorney.

The opinion states that the only claims remaining are Dimps’s Title VII claims alleging that the NYS Department of Corrections and Community Supervision denied her opportunities for promotion because of race. Claims against Civil Service Employees Association, Inc., Local 1000, AFSCME AFL-CIO, had previously been dismissed, and the Second Circuit had affirmed that dismissal. The court also noted that Dimps had litigated the case without an attorney since it began in November 2017 and that prior requests for pro bono counsel had been denied.

Rulings on Dimps’s Requests

The court denied the request to pause the case while Dimps searched for counsel. It treated the request as an application to stay the proceeding, meaning to temporarily stop it. The court concluded that Dimps had not shown that an indefinite stay was necessary or appropriate, particularly because the case was more than seven years old and discovery was nearing completion. The court said Dimps could continue looking for counsel while the case proceeded.

The court also denied the request to delay depositions until Dimps found an attorney. It stated that any attorney Dimps successfully retained could participate in depositions, but the court would not appoint pro bono counsel for her. The court extended the deadline for completing depositions by three weeks.

The court denied the request to compel additional document production. It stated that the defendant was not required to provide personnel files for people who were not parties, that the defendant represented it had already provided Dimps’s own personnel file, and that documents concerning Dimps’s hearing and skin conditions did not appear relevant to the remaining claims. The defendant was required to produce any additional responsive, non-privileged emails found in its archived-email search by January 6, 2025. The court also found no basis for a sanctions motion based on the requested documents.

The court denied the request to amend the caption. It stated that changing the caption could not revive the previously dismissed claims against the union. It also found that the operative Second Amended Complaint appropriately listed Dimps by name without referring to her former union position, and that adding the title would create confusion and ambiguity. The court further stated that it was not then an appropriate time to relitigate the earlier dismissals.

Revised Deadlines and Disposition

The court extended the defendant’s deadline to complete production of responsive, non-privileged emails to January 6, 2025, and set January 6, 2025, as the deadline for any supplemental privilege log if needed. Dimps’s deadline to provide final, verified, signed interrogatory responses was also extended to January 6, 2025. The deadline for a joint letter concerning the date of Dimps’s deposition and any depositions she intended to take was extended to January 24, 2025. All depositions were to be completed by February 7, 2025, although the court said it could consider a short extension for depositions Dimps chose to take; her own deposition still had to occur by February 7, 2025.

Judge Andrew E. Krause ordered that Dimps’s motion to compel be denied in its entirety. He directed the clerk to terminate the motion and mail a copy of the order to Dimps, whom the order identifies as proceeding without a lawyer.