Auguste v. Department of Corrections
- Paul Engelmayer
- 1:24-cv-00921
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Jean R. Auguste, Jr. v. Department of Corrections, Magistrate Judge Stein partly granted and partly denied defendants’ discovery applications and stayed discovery deadlines.
Jean R. Auguste, Jr., the City Defendants, and Project Renewal. Auguste must address the outstanding discovery requests, while the City Defendants and Project Renewal must resend those requests; all discovery deadlines are stayed.
What happened
In Jean R. Auguste, Jr. v. Department of Corrections, defendants asked the court to address Jean R. Auguste, Jr.’s failure to respond to discovery requests. Auguste said he no longer had documents to provide, and the court found it plausible that he lacked possession, custody, or control of relevant documents.
The court denied the City Defendants’ request to compel document production unless later information showed that Auguste’s representation was untrue. It ordered Auguste to answer the City Defendants’ unanswered questions and directed the City Defendants and Project Renewal to resend any outstanding discovery requests to him at Rikers Island. Auguste must respond by December 8, 2025, unless the court grants more time.
The defendants’ applications were granted in part and denied in part, and all discovery deadlines were stayed. Magistrate Judge Gary Stein warned that failing to comply with the discovery orders, or using offensive or abusive language toward defense counsel, could lead to sanctions, including dismissal of the case.
The detailed version
- Auguste v. Department of Corrections · No. 1:24-cv-00921
- Paul Engelmayer
- Nov. 10, 2025
Background
Defendants filed applications dated November 5 and 6, 2025. The City of New York, Aaliyah Kelly, John Caruso, and Seba Obsorne (the “City Defendants”) complained that Jean R. Auguste, Jr. had not responded to their requests for production of documents. Auguste stated in a September 23, 2025 letter that he “no longer has any documents to send or hand over.” The court found it plausible that Auguste no longer possessed, controlled, or could obtain relevant documents, given that he had been incarcerated or living in homeless shelters since the events involved in the lawsuit.
The City Defendants also said that Auguste had not answered interrogatories, which are written questions that a party must answer during discovery. His September 23 letter did not address those questions. Project Renewal joined the City Defendants’ application but did not identify whether its discovery requests included requests for documents, interrogatories, or both.
Court’s directives
The court denied the City Defendants’ motion to compel document production, unless the court later learned that Auguste’s statement about having no responsive documents was inaccurate. If Auguste possessed responsive documents or could obtain documents held for him by others, he was required to produce them. The City Defendants could present information to the court supporting a renewed motion to compel.
The court gave Auguste another opportunity to answer the City Defendants’ outstanding interrogatories, considering his status as a self-represented litigant and his renewed incarceration. For Project Renewal’s discovery, Auguste was directed to state whether he had responsive documents and produce them if he did, and to answer any interrogatories that Project Renewal had served.
Because Auguste might not have copies of the discovery requests while incarcerated at Rikers Island, the City Defendants and Project Renewal were ordered to resend any outstanding requests in a way that ensured receipt by November 17, 2025. Auguste was ordered to respond within three weeks after that, no later than December 8, 2025. He could request additional time before the deadline expired.
Ruling and warnings
The defendants’ applications were granted in part and denied in part. All discovery deadlines were stayed. The court warned that failure to comply with this order or the court’s August 29, 2025 order could result in sanctions up to and including dismissal. It also warned that offensive, insulting, or abusive communications with defense counsel could lead to the same sanctions. Magistrate Judge Gary Stein issued the order on November 10, 2025.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.