Garcia v. City of New York
- P. Castel
- 1:23-cv-06174
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Garcia v. City of New York, Judge Castel received defendants’ request to compel discovery and warn of possible dismissal, but the text contains no ruling.
The filing concerns Luis Garcia and defendants the City of New York, Madelyn Ulerio, and Joseph Paolini. It seeks an order requiring Garcia to provide discovery and a warning that the case could be dismissed if he does not comply.
What happened
In Garcia v. City of New York, defendants City of New York, Madelyn Ulerio, and Joseph Paolini said Luis Garcia had not answered their discovery requests or provided requested documents by two agreed deadlines. They said Garcia had produced only a scan of urgent-care discharge instructions.
The defendants asked the court to order Garcia to answer their discovery requests within two weeks. They also asked the court to warn that it could dismiss the complaint if he continued not to respond or participate in discovery. The complaint alleges claims including denial of a fair trial, malicious prosecution, false arrest, excessive force, and state-law claims.
The text is a defense request, not a ruling. Judge P. Castel did not grant, deny, or otherwise resolve the requests in the provided text.
The detailed version
- Garcia v. City of New York · No. 1:23-cv-06174
- P. Castel
- Apr. 1, 2025
Nature of the Filing
The provided text is a March 27, 2025 letter from Assistant Corporation Counsel Jessica Ochoa to the court on behalf of the City of New York, Madelyn Ulerio, and Joseph Paolini. It asks the court to compel discovery and to warn Luis Garcia that the case could be dismissed if he does not comply. The text does not contain a judicial opinion or order resolving those requests.
Background
Garcia filed the case on July 18, 2023. The letter says the complaint alleges denial of a right to a fair trial, malicious prosecution, false arrest, excessive force, and various state-law claims. The parties attended an initial pretrial conference on November 11, 2024. The court later endorsed a case-management plan that set March 22, 2025, as the deadline for fact discovery. On March 6, 2025, the court extended the deadline for completing fact discovery to April 19, 2025, after defendants requested more time to complete Garcia’s deposition.
Defendants said they served requests for documents and written questions on January 24, 2025, and served a notice of Garcia’s deposition. Garcia’s responses were due February 24,
- After Garcia’s lawyer requested more time, defendants agreed to extend the response deadline to March 17,
- Defendants said Garcia did not provide responses by either deadline. They also said Garcia’s deposition was postponed because his lawyer was ill and was later scheduled for April 8,
- According to the letter, Garcia had produced only a scan of urgent-care discharge instructions.
Requests and Legal Basis
Defendants asked the court to order Garcia to respond to their discovery requests within two weeks. They argued that the requested information was relevant to the claims and claimed damages, including information about witnesses, the details of the allegations, and medical history. The letter cites Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(1), which generally allows discovery of relevant, nonprivileged information.
Defendants also asked the court to warn Garcia that continued failure to respond could lead to dismissal under Rules 37(b) and 41(b). Rule 37(b) permits sanctions, including dismissal in some circumstances, when a party fails to obey a discovery order. Rule 41(b) permits dismissal when a plaintiff fails to prosecute a case or comply with court rules or orders.
Disposition
The provided text does not state that Judge P. Castel granted, denied, or otherwise ruled on defendants’ requests. It therefore does not establish any order compelling Garcia to respond or dismissing the complaint.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.