McDerma v. Does
- Willis
- 1:25-cv-05740
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 5
In Michael McDERMAN v. John Does, Judge Willis denied most requests, granted more time for service, and directed proper motion practice.
Michael McDERMAN and the unidentified John Doe defendants; the order also directs the Clerk of Court regarding the listed motions.
What happened
Michael McDERMAN filed several requests in Michael McDERMAN v. John Does, including requests to seal filings, obtain records early, issue subpoenas, and extend the deadline to serve the defendants.
The court denied the sealing requests, early-discovery requests, subpoena requests, and requests to use the Clerk of Court as the subpoena-return address. It granted McDERMAN an additional 120 days, until February 18, 2026, to serve the defendants. The court treated another filing as notice of possible future amendment, but instructed McDERMAN to file only requests allowed by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure; it also denied the request to speed up rulings as moot.
Judge Jennifer E. Willis issued the order on October 21, 2025, and directed the Clerk of Court to close the listed motions.
The detailed version
- McDerma v. Does · No. 1:25-cv-05740
- Willis
- Oct. 21, 2025
Background
Between July and October 2025, Michael McDERMAN, proceeding without a lawyer, filed several motions seeking court action. The order addressed motions listed at Docket Nos. 4, 18, 31, 32, 40, 44, and 47.
Sealing, Early Discovery, and Subpoenas
McDERMAN’s filing at Docket No. 4 was titled an order to show cause for a preliminary injunction. The court interpreted it as requesting to seal the case, obtain early discovery before the parties’ required discovery conference, and receive subpoenas.
The court denied the request to seal the filings. It determined that the filings were judicial documents and that the public’s right to access court records outweighed McDERMAN’s stated concerns.
The court also denied the request for early discovery. It held that McDERMAN had not shown the required good cause because the requested subpoenas were not the only way to obtain the information. The court identified other methods for obtaining McDERMAN’s own medical records, police records, and records from online platforms. Because early discovery was denied, the request for so-ordered subpoenas was denied as moot.
The separate motion at Docket No. 18 to temporarily seal materials related to a temporary restraining order was also denied under the same public-access analysis.
Subpoena Return Address
The court denied requests for the Clerk of Court to receive subpoena returns or serve as the return address for third-party subpoenas. It stated that, if McDERMAN is later permitted to serve subpoenas, he must use a personal return address.
Time to Serve Defendants
The court granted McDERMAN’s request for an extension of time to serve the defendants. It granted an additional 120 days, extending the deadline to February 18, 2026.
Supplemental Filing and Expedited Rulings
The court found that McDERMAN’s attempted supplemental filing did not request relief authorized by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The court interpreted the filing as indicating that McDERMAN might seek to amend the complaint later, but stated that the request had not yet been made. The court instructed him to file motions only when the rules permit the requested action.
The court denied as moot McDERMAN’s request to expedite rulings on the pending motions and repeated the instruction to file only motions permitted by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
Disposition
The Clerk of Court was requested to close Docket Nos. 4, 18, 31, 32, 40, 44, and 47. This order addressed procedural and case-management requests; it did not decide the underlying claims against the John Doe defendants.
Read the full 5-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.