Dimps v. Taconic Correctional Facility

Background

Plaintiff Shirley Dimps, proceeding without a lawyer, filed submissions at ECF Nos. 217, 219, 220, 222, and 223. The order addressed discovery, subpoenas, reconsideration requests, the anticipated trial, and the defendant’s privilege log. The court noted that DOCCS intended to file a motion for summary judgment and that a trial date would be appropriate only if Dimps’s claims survived that motion.

ECF No. 217: Consolidated Motion

The court ruled on eight requests in Dimps’s consolidated filing:

- Pretrial subpoenas: The court denied reconsideration of its earlier denial of subpoenas seeking trial or hearing testimony and related documents from 13 DOCCS employees. It also denied authorization to issue those subpoenas. The court explained that subpoenas can be used in pretrial discovery, but Dimps had sought subpoenas for trial testimony when no trial or hearing had been scheduled. The court had previously determined that document requests should instead proceed under Rule 34 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. - Appellate mandate: The court denied the request to enforce the appellate mandate. It found no violation of the mandate and stated that the district-court proceedings had continued under the Court of Appeals’ mandate. - Depositions: The court granted Dimps’s request to take depositions and authorized one final extension for depositions of relevant DOCCS witnesses. Dimps was required to provide a witness list by July 2, 2025 and to finalize a deposition schedule at the next status conference. The court reiterated that deposition costs remain the responsibility of the party taking the depositions, including a party proceeding without a lawyer. - Due process and jury demand: The court denied the request to schedule a jury trial at that time. It stated that the pleadings contained jury demands and that, if there were a trial, it would be a jury trial. The court denied the request concerning due-process protections and alleged unfair procedural restrictions as moot. - Document-review extension: The court denied the request for an extension to review DOCCS’s document production because no deadline currently restricted Dimps’s review and no briefing schedule had been set for the anticipated summary-judgment motion. - Alleged misrepresentation of arguments: The court denied the request to correct the record and reconsider rulings based on alleged misrepresentation. It found that Dimps had not identified specific portions of the record, misrepresentations, or procedural disadvantages requiring correction. - Dismissed Title VII claims: The court denied as moot the duplicative request to reconsider the dismissal of Dimps’s hostile-work-environment and retaliation claims under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Judge Román had already denied an earlier reconsideration motion without prejudice. - Rule 72 objections and expedited rulings: The court denied the request for immediate rulings on Dimps’s objections under Rule 72 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and for a timeline for pending matters. The court stated that Judge Román would address the objections in due course and that Dimps was not entitled to a clear schedule for all outstanding motions.

ECF No. 219: Privilege Log

Dimps asked the court to require a revised privilege log, privately inspect withheld documents, and require further explanations. A privilege log is a list describing documents withheld from discovery based on attorney-client privilege or another protection.

The court found that the log did not identify all non-attorney senders and recipients adequately. It required DOCCS to add identifying information for all individuals listed in the “From” and “To/Cc” fields. The court also found that certain subject descriptions did not adequately state the general subject matter of the documents and required additional descriptions for entries Nos. 7, 9, 19–24, 36, 37, 40–44, 46, 47, 49, and 51–56.

The court rejected Dimps’s argument that one revised privilege designation undermined all of the other privilege assertions. It found no sufficient basis for privately reviewing all withheld documents at that time. The privilege-log requests were therefore granted in part and denied in part. DOCCS was ordered to provide the revised log by July 2, 2025. After receiving it, Dimps could identify specific disputed entries by July 23, 2025.

ECF No. 220: Reconsideration and Discovery Compliance

The court left the reconsideration portion of the filing for Judge Román to evaluate because it appeared to concern Román’s earlier direction regarding a renewed reconsideration motion. The court denied as moot the motion-to-compel portion because its duplicative requests concerning subpoenas, depositions, document review, and the privilege log had already been addressed.

ECF Nos. 222 and 223: Subpoena Service

The court reiterated that the deadline to serve the remaining approved subpoenas was June 27, 2025 and that it could not provide guidance or advice about service methods or requirements. It explained that the presence or absence of a proof-of-service page on the proposed subpoena forms did not affect Dimps’s ability to serve the approved subpoenas.

Further Proceedings and Classification

The court scheduled an in-person status conference for July 9, 2025, to address Dimps’s deposition plans, other discovery issues, and a firm deadline for completing discovery. It directed the clerk to terminate the motions at ECF Nos. 220 and 223 and to mail the order to Dimps.

This was a procedural order. It resolved discovery, reconsideration, subpoena, and case-management requests but did not decide the merits of Dimps’s underlying claims.