Taylor v. Rengel
Phillip Taylor, Sr. v. Yesenia Rengel, Kenny Ortiz, NYC Health & Hospitals, and Jacobi Kirk Robinson
- Robert Lehrburger
- 1:23-cv-10324
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Taylor v. Rengel, Judge Lehrburger denied discovery sanctions, granted expert-disclosure relief in part, and denied expert appointment without prejudice.
Phillip Taylor, Sr. and the defendants, because the order denied some of Taylor’s requests, granted one request in part, and imposed a response deadline on the defendants.
What happened
Phillip Taylor, Sr. v. Yesenia Rengel, Kenny Ortiz, NYC Health & Hospitals, and Jacobi Kirk Robinson concerned Taylor’s requests in a September 30, 2025 letter.
The court denied Taylor’s request for discovery sanctions because he identified no required discovery that remained outstanding, and discovery was closed. The court granted in part his request concerning Dr. Silberman’s expert declaration, requiring the defendants to provide supplemental information, identify where the information appeared in their motion papers, or explain why the declaration could be considered without it. The court also denied without prejudice Taylor’s request for a court-appointed expert whose costs the defendants would share.
Judge Robert W. Lehrburger entered the order on October 7, 2025. The clerk was directed to terminate the letter motion.
The detailed version
- Taylor v. Rengel · No. 1:23-cv-10324
- Robert Lehrburger
- Oct. 7, 2025
Background
The order addresses Phillip Taylor, Sr.’s requests in a September 30, 2025 letter filed at Dkt. 75. The opinion states that Taylor was proceeding without a lawyer. The order concerns discovery, an expert declaration, and Taylor’s request for appointment of an expert witness.
Rulings
1. Discovery sanctions: The court denied Taylor’s request for discovery sanctions. The court stated that Taylor had not identified discovery that was outstanding and required to be produced. It also stated that discovery was closed.
2. Dr. Silberman’s declaration: The court granted in part Taylor’s application concerning the declaration of opining expert Dr. Silberman. By October 14, 2025, the defendants were ordered to do one of three things: file a supplement providing the information required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a)(2)(B), items iv through vi; file a letter identifying where that information appeared in their motion papers; or explain why the declaration, which the court described as being in substance an expert report, could be considered without that information.
3. Court-appointed expert: The court denied without prejudice Taylor’s request for appointment of an expert witness for which the defendants would be required to share the cost. The court explained that appointment is discretionary and that Federal Rule of Evidence 706 allows a court to appoint an expert, but not as a partisan for one side. The court found that appointment was not warranted at that time because summary judgment would be decided based on whether genuinely disputed material facts existed. The court stated that it could appoint an expert later if it determined that appointment was appropriate.
Disposition
The clerk was directed to terminate the letter motion at Dkt. 75. This order does not decide the parties’ anticipated summary-judgment motion or the underlying claims.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.