Nieves v. New York State Office of Mental Health and Richmond University…
Nieves v. New York State Office of Mental Health and Richmond University Medical Center
- Vargas
- 1:24-cv-06267
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 8
In Nieves v. New York State Office of Mental Health, Judge Vargas denied Nieves’s motion to compel because the requested discovery was premature and not clearly relevant.
Fernando Nieves, Jr.’s request for third-party medical records, video footage, and related discovery was denied; the underlying employment-discrimination claims were not decided in this order.
What happened
In Nieves v. New York State Office of Mental Health and Richmond University Medical Center, Fernando Nieves, Jr., who is representing himself, asked the court for records, video evidence, and accommodations related to his hospitalization and treatment. He also sought discovery from the New York State Office of Mental Health and Richmond University Medical Center.
The court said the case involves employment-discrimination claims, while Nieves’s current request concerned medical records from September 2025, after his employment had ended. The court noted that it had not set a discovery schedule and that it was unclear whether the parties had held the required meeting to plan discovery.
Judge Vargas denied the motion to compel. The court ruled that the discovery request was premature and that the third-party discovery sought was not of any obvious relevance to the case. The Clerk was directed to terminate ECF No. 55.
The detailed version
- Nieves v. New York State Office of Mental Health and Richmond University… · No. 1:24-cv-06267
- Vargas
- Oct. 28, 2025
Background
Fernando Nieves, Jr., representing himself, submitted a letter asking the court to intervene regarding medical records, video footage, administrative records, discovery enforcement, and accommodations for disabilities. He requested records and video from the New York State Office of Mental Health and Richmond University Medical Center relating to his September 2025 hospitalization and treatment. He also requested extended deadlines, accessible filing methods, simplified instructions, and possible assistance with organizing evidence.
The opinion states that the underlying action involves claims of employment discrimination. Nieves’s current discovery request concerned medical records from September 2025, which the court described as a period after his employment had ended.
Court’s Analysis
The court denied the motion to compel. It explained that the court had not yet set a discovery schedule and that it was unclear whether the parties had held the conference required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(f). Under Rule 26(d)(1), discovery therefore was premature.
The court also stated that the third-party discovery Nieves sought was not of any obvious relevance to the employment-discrimination claims in this action. The excerpt does not state that the court decided the merits of those claims or separately rule on each requested accommodation.
Disposition
Judge Vargas denied the motion to compel. The Clerk was directed to terminate ECF No. 55.
Read the full 8-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.