Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Sept. 3, 2025

DeLeon v. Johnson

Judge
Kenneth Karas
Docket
7:24-cv-08101
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
2
DiscoveryCivil Procedure
In one sentence

In Deleon v. Johnson, Judge Karas denied Deleon’s motion to compel discovery without prejudice because no complaint plausibly stating a claim had been filed.

Who this affects

Jonathan Deleon and the defendants identified in the order, including Johnson, Pagan, Miller, Bell, and Kreischer.

What happened

In Deleon v. Johnson, Jonathan Deleon asked the court to require defendants to produce documents. The New York State Office of the Attorney General responded for several defendants and opposed the request.

The defendants argued that the request was premature because Deleon had not filed a clear, operative complaint identifying his claims and intended defendants. They also argued that he could not use discovery to search for possible legal claims before filing a complaint.

The court agreed and denied the motion to compel without prejudice, meaning the request was not permanently barred by this order. Judge Kenneth M. Karas also directed the Clerk to mail the order to Deleon.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
DeLeon v. Johnson · No. 7:24-cv-08101
Judge
Kenneth Karas
Date
Sept. 3, 2025

Background

Jonathan Deleon filed a motion to compel the production of documents on August 11, 2025. The New York State Office of the Attorney General stated that it represented defendants Johnson, Pagan, Miller, Bell, and Kreischer in opposing that motion.

The defendants argued that Deleon’s request was premature because he did not have an operative complaint. They noted that the court had ordered Deleon on June 13, 2025, to file a short and plain statement of the claims he wanted to pursue. According to the defendants, Deleon had not filed a coherent statement of his claims or clarified which defendants he intended to sue.

The defendants also argued that Deleon could not obtain discovery before filing a complaint that plausibly stated a claim, and that he should not be allowed to use discovery to search for possible causes of action.

Ruling

The court agreed with the defendants. It stated that Deleon was not entitled to discovery until he filed a complaint that plausibly stated a claim. The court therefore denied Deleon’s application to compel without prejudice. The Clerk was directed to mail the document to Deleon.

The authoritative version

Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.