Ellis v. Kush
- Subramanian
- 1:25-cv-01224
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 7
In Ellis v. Kush, Judge Subramanian denied Ellis’s motion to clarify default and obtain discovery because no default judgment existed and discovery was premature.
Gilbert Ellis’s request for discovery from Lynn Jerome and Paula Sinclair, as well as the procedural progress of his claims against the other defendants.
What happened
In Ellis v. Kush, Gilbert Ellis, representing himself, asked the court to clarify the effect of Lynn Jerome and Paula Sinclair’s alleged default and to allow discovery from them. He said their testimony and records were relevant to his claims against other defendants.
Ellis requested depositions, communications, financial records, and agreements concerning the underlying transaction. He argued that this material could support his claims involving false arrest, malicious prosecution, conspiracy, and constitutional violations.
Judge Arun Subramanian denied the motion. The court stated that Ellis had not obtained a default judgment against Jerome and Sinclair; he must first obtain a valid Clerk’s Certificate of Default and then seek a default judgment. The court also said discovery was premature because the remaining defendants had not yet answered or moved to dismiss, and directed the Clerk to terminate the motion.
The detailed version
- Ellis v. Kush · No. 1:25-cv-01224
- Subramanian
- Mar. 31, 2025
Motion and Background
Gilbert Ellis, proceeding without a lawyer, moved to clarify the scope of the alleged default of Lynn Jerome and Paula Sinclair, obtain permission to conduct discovery from them, and compel depositions. Ellis asked to take their depositions and obtain communications, financial records, and agreements related to the underlying transaction.
Ellis alleged that Jerome and Sinclair made false accusations that led to his arrest and prosecution. He also alleged that Detective Greene Kush and Assistant District Attorney Richard Farrell relied on or failed to investigate those accusations. Ellis argued that discovery from Jerome and Sinclair was relevant to his claims against the remaining defendants, including conspiracy and claims concerning the City of New York’s alleged responsibility.
Court’s Ruling
The court denied the motion. It stated that Ellis had not obtained a default judgment against Jerome and Sinclair. The court said Ellis must first obtain a valid Clerk’s Certificate of Default and then move for a default judgment.
The court separately ruled that any discovery requests were premature because the remaining defendants had not yet answered the complaint or otherwise moved to dismiss it. The Clerk of Court was directed to terminate the motion at ECF No. 29.
The order did not decide the merits of Ellis’s underlying claims or whether Jerome and Sinclair were liable.
Read the full 7-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.