Muhammad v. The Port Authority of New York and New Jersey
- John Koeltl
- 1:23-cv-09908
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Muhammad v. The Port Authority, Judge Stein scheduled discovery discussions and a pre-motion conference.
The order affects Aleem Muhammad, The Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, the other defendants, and the non-party eyewitness whose contact information was discussed.
What happened
Muhammad v. The Port Authority of New York and New Jersey concerns a discovery dispute in Aleem Muhammad’s case against the Port Authority and other defendants. The opinion does not decide the underlying claims.
The court directed the parties to discuss contact information for a non-party eyewitness, medical damages, and possible remedies for alleged discovery noncompliance that would be less severe than preventing evidence from being used.
Judge Gary Stein ordered the parties to submit a joint status letter by May 30, 2025, and scheduled a video conference for June 6, 2025. The order does not resolve the discovery dispute.
The detailed version
- Muhammad v. The Port Authority of New York and New Jersey · No. 1:23-cv-09908
- John Koeltl
- May 23, 2025
Background
The action was referred to Magistrate Judge Gary Stein for general pretrial management on May 22, 2025. The order addresses a dispute identified in docket entries 24 through 26. The opinion refers to Plaintiff Aleem Muhammad’s discovery obligations and to issues involving a non-party eyewitness and medical damages.
Court’s actions
The court directed the parties to meet and confer about the dispute and to submit a joint status letter by May 30, 2025. Their discussions must include the non-party eyewitness’s contact information, the medical-damages issue, and whether they can agree on remedies short of precluding evidence to address any prejudice to the defendants caused by Muhammad’s alleged noncompliance with discovery obligations. Evidence preclusion is a sanction that prevents a party from using particular evidence.
The court also scheduled a pre-motion video conference for June 6, 2025, at 11:00 a.m., to be held through Microsoft Teams. The order does not grant or deny a motion, impose a discovery sanction, or decide the merits of the underlying case.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.