Rhodes v. Presbyterian
- Rearden
- 1:23-cv-06449
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 5
In Rhodes v. NY Presbyterian, Judge Rearden scheduled a telephone conference but did not decide discovery, amendment, or dismissal motions.
Evan Rhodes and the hospital defendants, including their counsel, are affected by the scheduled conference and the unresolved discovery and motion requests.
What happened
In Rhodes v. NY Presbyterian, Evan Rhodes’s lawyer asked the court to allow discovery while a motion to file a second amended complaint and motions to dismiss remained pending. The lawyer said delays had harmed Rhodes and that he faced possible eviction and loss of evidence.
The hospital defendants opposed starting discovery, arguing that their dismissal motions might end the case or narrow the issues, making discovery wasteful and burdensome. They also argued that the proposed amended claims were legally insufficient.
Judge Jennifer H. Rearden did not rule on the discovery request, the amendment motion, or the dismissal motions. Instead, Judge Rearden ordered a telephone conference for September 26, 2025, at 11:00 a.m.
The detailed version
- Rhodes v. Presbyterian · No. 1:23-cv-06449
- Rearden
- Sept. 5, 2025
Background
The court received a letter from counsel for Evan Rhodes dated August 22, 2025. The letter served two purposes: it cited a new Second Circuit decision that Rhodes said supported his pending motion for permission to file a second amended complaint, and it asked the court to allow discovery to begin.
According to the letter, Rhodes alleged that he received both religious and medical exemptions from the COVID-19 vaccine, that the defendants later rescinded both exemptions without explanation, and that they did not provide or consider another accommodation. The letter further stated that Rhodes was removed from the building after refusing vaccination, could not be fired while on disability leave, and later resigned when that leave ended.
Counsel stated that the defendants first appeared on August 23, 2023, that no discovery had occurred, and that the motion practice had delayed the case. Counsel also stated that defendants had served Rhodes with another eviction complaint concerning his apartment, and that Rhodes faced prejudice from the possible loss of witnesses, documents, and other evidence.
Parties’ positions on discovery
Rhodes asked the court to refer the matter to a United States magistrate judge to begin discovery or, at minimum, to require the parties to exchange information under Rule 26. Counsel said the defendants did not consent.
The hospital defendants’ stated position was that their motions to dismiss might dispose of the entire case or narrow the claims and issues. They argued that discovery would therefore be wasteful and burdensome while those motions were pending. They also argued that the proposed second amended complaint was futile and failed under established pleading law.
Court action
Judge Rearden stated that the court had received numerous party filings, identified as ECF Nos. 83–86, and ordered a telephone conference for September 26, 2025, at 11:00 a.m. The text provided does not show a ruling on Rhodes’s request to begin discovery, his motion for permission to file a second amended complaint, or the defendants’ motions to dismiss.
Read the full 5-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.