Ramirez v. City Of New York
- Subramanian
- 1:24-cv-01061
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
In Ramirez v. City of New York, Judge Subramanian terminated a discovery motion without ordering more production before the summary-judgment deadline.
Sally Ramirez and the defendants, including the City of New York, are affected by the termination of the discovery motion and the court’s refusal to allow additional productions before the summary-judgment deadline.
What happened
In Ramirez v. City of New York, Sally Ramirez asked the court to require the defendants to provide additional information and documents. She said the material concerned employees who received telework accommodations and the defendants’ litigation hold, which preserves information for a lawsuit.
The defendants opposed the requests as improper, untimely, irrelevant, or sensitive. Ramirez argued that deposition testimony had revealed new information and inconsistencies supporting the additional discovery.
Judge Arun Subramanian terminated the discovery motion. The court emphasized that the case was nearly closed, the summary-judgment deadline was June 7, 2025, and it would not allow additional productions so close to that deadline.
The detailed version
- Ramirez v. City Of New York · No. 1:24-cv-01061
- Subramanian
- June 5, 2025
Background
Sally Ramirez’s counsel submitted a letter under Local Rule 37.2 asking the court to compel additional discovery from the defendants. The dispute followed the defendants’ supplemental responses to document requests and interrogatories, and a meet-and-confer held on May 27, 2025. Ramirez said the requested discovery followed deposition testimony taken in March 2025.
Requested Discovery
Ramirez sought targeted information about Finance Office employees who had received telework as a reasonable accommodation. She argued that these employees could provide comparator information relevant to her allegations of discriminatory or retaliatory treatment. She said she sought names and decision-related information, not health, performance, or disciplinary records.
She also sought information about a litigation hold issued by HRA Legal Affairs, including who authorized and received it, how and when it was distributed, its contents, follow-up procedures, and related training. Ramirez argued that this information was relevant to notice, preservation of evidence, and the timing of alleged retaliation. She pointed to differing deposition testimony about whether certain individuals knew about the lawsuit or received a litigation hold.
Ramirez further argued that her later discovery requests were proper follow-up requests based on new deposition testimony and were permitted under the federal discovery rules. The defendants disputed the requests on procedural, timing, relevance, and sensitivity grounds.
Court’s Action
The court emphasized that the case had closed nearly a month earlier and that the deadline for summary-judgment motions was June 7, 2025. The court had repeatedly stated that there would be no further extensions of the schedule. It concluded that the motion should have been filed when the dispute became clear and directed that the motion at ECF No. 8 be terminated. The court also stated that it would not allow additional productions so close to the summary-judgment deadline.
The opinion does not state that the motion was granted or denied; it states that the motion was terminated. The court did not decide the underlying discrimination or retaliation claims.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.