Maiorino v. City of New York

What the Plaintiff Requested

The plaintiff moved under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 26 and 37 and Local Civil Rule 37.2 for an order compelling the defendants to provide discovery and extending the deadline for depositions until the discovery was produced.

The motion alleged deficiencies in the defendants’ responses to interrogatories and document requests, including alleged boilerplate objections, incomplete answers, a failure to respond to a second set of document demands, and a failure to produce electronically stored information. The requested discovery concerned, among other things, religious-accommodation decisionmakers, accommodations granted to other employees, policies and guidance, information about aborted fetal cell lines, potential accommodation options, undue-hardship evaluations, and compensation information.

Court’s Disposition

The court stated: “Plaintiff's motion is denied as moot following the Court's order dismissing the amended complaint at Dkt. No. 49.” The clerk was respectfully requested to close docket number 42, which was the discovery motion.

The opinion text provided here does not state the grounds for the dismissal of the amended complaint, and it does not decide whether the requested discovery was relevant, whether the defendants’ responses were adequate, or whether sanctions were warranted. The ruling therefore resolved the discovery motion based on the prior dismissal rather than addressing the discovery disputes on their merits.

Judge and Date

Judge Lewis J. Liman issued the ruling dated October 17, 2025. The text also includes a September 2, 2025 date on the plaintiff’s motion letter, but the court’s notation is dated October 17, 2025.