Boodhoo Jr. v. City of New York et al.
- Ho
- 1:24-cv-04727
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In Boodhoo Jr. v. City of New York, Judge Ho granted the plaintiff’s motion to compel limited discovery of training and disciplinary records.
The plaintiff and defendants in the case, including Defendant Iodice; the order concerns production of training documents and disciplinary records.
What happened
In Boodhoo Jr. v. City of New York, the plaintiff asked the court to require production of documents identified in requests for production Nos. 18 and 24. The requests included training documents and disciplinary records concerning conduct similar to that alleged in the complaint.
The court found the training documents relevant to a possible qualified-immunity defense by Defendant Iodice. It also found the related disciplinary records relevant and discoverable at this stage. Because the plaintiff limited the disciplinary-record request to conduct within the last ten years, the court found it proportionate to the needs of the case.
Judge Dale E. Ho granted the motion to compel as to requests Nos. 18 and 24. The parties must meet and confer about reasonable search terms for the training documents and may return to the court for guidance if they cannot agree. The clerk was directed to terminate the motion from the docket.
The detailed version
- Boodhoo Jr. v. City of New York et al. · No. 1:24-cv-04727
- Ho
- Oct. 30, 2025
Background
The plaintiff filed a motion to compel, asking the court to require discovery under requests for production Nos. 18 and 24. The opinion states that the requests concerned training documents and disciplinary records relating to conduct similar to the conduct alleged in the complaint, including arrests or use of force.
Court’s Analysis
The court found that the requested training documents were relevant to a potential qualified-immunity defense that Defendant Iodice could assert. Qualified immunity is a legal protection that may shield certain government officials from liability under specified circumstances. The court also found that disciplinary records concerning similar conduct were relevant and discoverable at this stage of the case.
The plaintiff agreed to limit the disciplinary-record request to records concerning conduct within the previous ten years. Based on that limitation, the court found the request proportionate to the needs of the case.
Ruling and Next Steps
The court granted the plaintiff’s motion to compel, ECF No. 33, with respect to requests for production Nos. 18 and 24. The parties were directed to meet and confer about reasonable search terms for the training documents. If they cannot agree, they may return to the court for further guidance. The clerk was directed to terminate ECF No. 33.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.