M.Q. v. Kenneth Genalo
- Andrew Carter
- 1:22-cv-10680
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
[plaintiff] v. United States of America: Judge Parker granted the application, adjourned a conference, and ordered a May 2 status update on discovery and settlement.
The plaintiff and the United States in the Federal Tort Claims Act action were affected by the adjournment of the case-management conference and the requirement to file a status letter by May 2, 2025. The order’s effect on the requested discovery stay is unclear from the text provided.
What happened
[plaintiff] v. United States of America concerns a Federal Tort Claims Act lawsuit involving an injury that occurred while an Immigration and Customs Enforcement employee was escorting the plaintiff. The parties reported progress in discovery and settlement discussions.
The parties jointly asked the court to pause discovery for 45 days, adjourn the March 24, 2025 case-management conference, and allow a later status report while the Government sought settlement authority. The opinion does not identify the plaintiff by name.
Judge Katharine H. Parker granted the application, adjourned the March 24 conference, and ordered the parties to file another status letter by May 2, 2025, updating the court on discovery and settlement. The order does not expressly state whether the requested 45-day discovery stay was granted.
The detailed version
- M.Q. v. Kenneth Genalo · No. 1:22-cv-10680
- Andrew Carter
- Mar. 19, 2025
Background
The action is brought under the Federal Tort Claims Act, a federal law allowing certain claims against the United States for injuries caused by government employees. The parties reported that the plaintiff had deposed two Immigration and Customs Enforcement employees and was scheduling another fact-witness deposition. The Government was reviewing more than 1,000 emails collected from additional custodians and preparing a production. The parties had also discussed the plaintiff’s notice for a deposition of the Government under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30(b)(6), which permits an organization to designate witnesses to testify about specified topics.
The parties also reported settlement progress. The plaintiff made a settlement demand, the Government proposed recommending settlement to Immigration and Customs Enforcement at a certain figure, and the plaintiff indicated that she would accept that figure to resolve the case. Government counsel was seeking the agency’s consent and authority for the proposed settlement.
The parties’ request
The parties jointly requested a 45-day stay of discovery so they could focus resources on settlement negotiations. They also requested that the March 24, 2025 case-management conference be adjourned and that they be allowed to submit another status report by May 2, 2025.
Ruling
The court’s order states, “APPLICATION GRANTED.” It adjourned the case-management conference scheduled for March 24, 2025 and ordered the parties to file another status letter by May 2, 2025, addressing the status of discovery and settlement. Although the parties requested a 45-day discovery stay, the order excerpt does not expressly state whether that portion of the request was granted. Judge Katharine H. Parker signed the order on March 19, 2025.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.