AA v. CITY OF NEW YORK
AA, by and through her parents BB and CC; BB; CC et al. v. CITY OF NEW YORK et al.
- Gabriel Gorenstein
- 1:25-cv-00752
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In AA v. CITY OF NEW YORK, Judge Gorenstein scheduled a discovery-dispute conference and directed the parties to narrow potentially burdensome subpoena requests.
The plaintiffs, defendants, and their attorneys in this case, including the Assistant District Attorney involved with the subpoenaed file.
What happened
In AA, by and through her parents BB and CC; BB; CC et al. v. CITY OF NEW YORK et al., the court addressed a dispute about documents sought by subpoena. The court scheduled a conference for October 31, 2025, and said it generally expected to decide the dispute from the parties’ letters unless a party showed good cause for formal briefing.
The court said the plaintiffs would not have to ask a state court to unseal the materials. It directed the parties to consult again about categories of documents that would not be burdensome to produce, identifying the plaintiff’s video as an obvious example.
Judge Gorenstein ordered the parties’ attorneys to prepare for the conference and ensure that all counsel knew the date and time. The court said it would later decide whether documents should be produced under applicable case law, including privilege rules, after considering whether the subpoena would be unduly burdensome.
The detailed version
- AA v. CITY OF NEW YORK · No. 1:25-cv-00752
- Gabriel Gorenstein
- Oct. 24, 2025
Proceeding
The order concerns a discovery dispute raised in Docket #86. Discovery is the process by which parties obtain information and documents for a lawsuit.
Court conference and briefing
The court scheduled a conference for Friday, October 31, 2025, at 11:30 a.m. in Courtroom 519 of the United States Courthouse at 40 Centre Street, New York, New York. The court stated that it intended to decide the dispute based on the parties’ letters unless a party submitted a letter beforehand showing good cause why formal briefing was necessary.
The court directed each attorney to ensure that all other attorneys knew about the conference. It also stated that any request to postpone the conference had to comply with paragraph 1.F of Judge Gorenstein’s Individual Practices.
Unsealing and subpoenaed materials
The court stated that it would follow the decision in Bethea v. City of New York and would not require the plaintiffs to apply in state court to unseal the materials. The court nevertheless said it needed to determine whether responding to the subpoena would be unduly burdensome. It directed the parties to consult again and try to identify categories of documents that would not be burdensome to produce, noting that the plaintiff’s video was an obvious example.
The court instructed the Assistant District Attorney to become familiar quickly with the types of documents in the District Attorney’s file. If the parties reached agreement on categories of documents, the court would then analyze whether those materials should be produced under applicable case law, including Douglas Oil Co. v. Petrol Stops Northwest, 441 U.S. 211 (1979), and privilege law.
Disposition
The order scheduled the discovery conference and issued preparation directives. It did not resolve the underlying discovery dispute or decide that any particular documents must be produced.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.