Colson v. Mingo
- Clarke
- 1:18-cv-02765
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
In Colson v. Mingo, Judge Clarke denied part of defendants’ scheduling request, refused to adjourn trial, and extended pretrial-filing deadlines to February 21, 2025.
The order affected Ronald Colson and the defendants by setting deadlines for pretrial filings and leaving the March 17, 2025 trial date in place for now.
What happened
In Ronald Colson v. Mingo, the defendants asked for more time to file pretrial materials and asked the court to postpone the March 17 trial. They cited recently received information from Colson and an expedited appeal involving the Nunez consent judgment that could affect a previously dismissed municipal-liability claim.
The court denied the request to postpone the trial for now but granted the request for additional time to submit the required pretrial materials. The parties’ joint filings, amended exhibit filings, and motions challenging proposed trial evidence were due February 21, 2025; oppositions were due February 27, 2025.
The final pretrial conference remained scheduled for March 6, 2025. Judge Jessica G. L. Clarke stated that the court would consider rescheduling the trial later if the Second Circuit’s decision affected the scope of the case.
The detailed version
- Colson v. Mingo · No. 1:18-cv-02765
- Clarke
- Feb. 18, 2025
Background
The defendants asked for an extension until February 21, 2025, to file motions in limine, the joint pretrial order, proposed jury-question materials, proposed jury instructions, a verdict sheet, and a required spreadsheet. They said Colson had recently provided an exhibit list of approximately 50 items and amended answers to earlier interrogatories, leaving insufficient time to review the information and prepare the filings. Colson did not object to the extension if the court approved it.
The defendants also asked to postpone the March 17, 2025 trial. They relied on an expedited Second Circuit appeal concerning the Nunez consent judgment. The opinion states that the appeal could affect whether Colson could seek reconsideration of summary judgment on his municipal-liability claim concerning excessive force. The defendants argued that, if the claim were revived, the parties would need time to address evidence, jury instructions, and the organization of the trial. Colson opposed postponing the trial.
Ruling
The court stated: “Application DENIED IN PART and GRANTED IN PART.” It did not postpone the trial at that time because the Second Circuit was expediting the Nunez appeal in light of the trial date. The court said it would consider rescheduling the trial if the Second Circuit issued a decision affecting the scope of the case.
The court granted additional time for the pretrial submissions. The parties were ordered to submit the required joint filings by February 21, 2025. Colson could submit amended exhibit filings or motions in limine by that date, and the defendants were required to submit any motions in limine by then. Responses to those motions were due February 27, 2025. The final pretrial conference remained scheduled for March 6, 2025.
Judge Jessica G. L. Clarke also directed the Clerk of Court to terminate ECF Nos. 247 and 250. The opinion does not state that the court resolved the Second Circuit appeal or finally decided whether the municipal-liability claim would be revived.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.