Suarez v. The Long Island Railroad Company
- Edgardo Ramos
- 1:22-cv-09013
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 8
In Suarez v. LIRR, Judge Ramos directed the defendant to respond to Suarez’s motion seeking an order compelling Abel Guzman’s deposition.
Suarez, the defendant or defendants required to respond, Abel Guzman as the person whose deposition the plaintiff seeks, and D & C United in connection with the requested sanctions warning.
What happened
In Suarez v. The Long Island Railroad Company, the plaintiff asked the court to require Abel Guzman to appear for a deposition. The plaintiff’s lawyer said Guzman had been identified as the driver of a vehicle involved in the accident and had not appeared after receiving a subpoena.
The plaintiff asked for the deposition to occur on September 11, 2025, and requested warnings about possible contempt and other sanctions if Guzman did not attend. The letter also asked for possible sanctions against defendant D & C United if Guzman failed to comply.
Judge Edgardo Ramos did not decide whether to compel the deposition or impose sanctions. The court directed the defendant to respond to the plaintiff’s request.
The detailed version
- Suarez v. The Long Island Railroad Company · No. 1:22-cv-09013
- Edgardo Ramos
- July 23, 2025
Background
The plaintiff, Suarez, moved for an order compelling Abel Guzman’s deposition. According to the plaintiff’s letter, D & C United had identified Guzman as the driver of the vehicle involved in the accident. The plaintiff stated that Guzman did not appear for a deposition scheduled for July 22, 2025, after being served with a deposition subpoena, and that he had not objected to the subpoena.
The letter also referred to an earlier failed effort to obtain Guzman’s deposition through a deposition notice served on his attorney. The plaintiff asked the court to require Guzman to appear for a stenographic or video deposition on September 11, 2025, at a specified reporting office. The plaintiff further requested warnings that failure to appear could lead to contempt, sanctions, and detention for purposes of taking the deposition. The plaintiff also asked the court to warn D & C United that similar sanctions, including striking its pleadings, could be imposed if Guzman did not attend.
Court’s Action
The court’s endorsement states: “The Court directs Defendant to respond.” The court did not grant or deny the motion to compel, order Guzman’s deposition, impose sanctions, or rule on the plaintiff’s legal arguments. The supplied text therefore reflects a procedural discovery order requiring a response, not a final decision on the motion.
Result
Judge Edgardo Ramos directed the defendant to respond to the plaintiff’s motion. The opinion does not state a deadline for that response or identify any further action taken by the court.
Read the full 8-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.