Dimps v. NYS Department of Corrections & Community Supervision
- Nelson Roman
- 7:17-cv-08806
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Dimps v. NYS Department of Corrections & Community Supervision, Judge Roman granted the Justice Department’s request to pause its response deadline to discovery motions during the funding lapse.
The order primarily affects the DOJ’s deadline to respond to Dimps’s two motions to compel. Dimps’s deposition and fact-discovery deadlines remain in place, subject to possible exceptions involving the DOJ and the EEOC.
What happened
In Dimps v. NYS Department of Corrections & Community Supervision, Shirley Dimps is pursuing a discrimination claim against the New York State Department of Corrections and Community Supervision. The Justice Department, which is not a party to the case, received a subpoena and records request from Dimps related to the agency’s employment practices.
Dimps filed two motions asking the court to require the Justice Department to respond. The Justice Department said it had already responded to her requests and asked for additional time because of the lapse in federal funding, which had furloughed its attorneys.
Judge Nelson Roman granted the Justice Department’s motion. Its deadline to respond to Dimps’s motions was stayed and extended to 14 days after the federal shutdown ended and Justice Department funding was restored. The deadlines for completing Dimps’s depositions and fact discovery remained October 31, 2025, and December 1, 2025, respectively, subject to possible exceptions involving the Justice Department and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.
The detailed version
- Dimps v. NYS Department of Corrections & Community Supervision · No. 7:17-cv-08806
- Nelson Roman
- Oct. 3, 2025
Background
Shirley Dimps asserts a discrimination claim under Title VII against the New York State Department of Corrections and Community Supervision. She sent the United States Department of Justice (DOJ), a nonparty, a subpoena and a request under the DOJ’s regulations for agency records related to the New York agency’s employment practices.
The DOJ responded with objections, including that the requests were too broad, burdensome, and not proportional to the needs of the case. It also asserted that the subpoena was procedurally flawed and that some requested information could be protected by privileges or laws. The DOJ stated that, when the requests were construed consistently with the court’s prior guidance about the proper scope of discovery, it was unaware of responsive materials in its possession. The DOJ later told Dimps that her request was not a proper way to ask the DOJ to investigate her claims or intervene in the Title VII litigation.
Dimps then filed two motions to compel, meaning motions asking the court to require the DOJ to provide a response or documents. The DOJ’s letter motion at ECF No. 285 asked the court to stay its deadline to respond because of the lapse in federal appropriations and the resulting furlough of DOJ attorneys.
Ruling
Judge Nelson Roman granted the DOJ’s letter motion. The deadline for the DOJ to respond to Dimps’s motions to compel was stayed because of the lapse in federal funding and extended to 14 days after the federal government shutdown was resolved and DOJ funding was restored.
The court did not change the deadline for Dimps to complete depositions, which remained October 31, 2025, or the deadline to complete fact discovery, which remained December 1, 2025. The court noted that possible exceptions to those deadlines could apply to aspects of the case involving the DOJ and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. The Clerk of Court was directed to mail the memo endorsement to Dimps, whom the order identifies as proceeding without a lawyer.
Effect of the Order
This was a scheduling and discovery order. It addressed only the DOJ’s deadline to respond to Dimps’s motions to compel and did not decide the underlying discrimination claim or the merits of the discovery disputes.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.