Etuk v. New York City Department of the Homeless
- Ronnie Abrams
- 1:24-cv-04967
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 5
In Etuk v. New York City Department of the Homeless, Judge Parker granted Defendants’ request for a limited, final discovery extension.
The order directly affected Akaniyene William Etuk and the Defendants by extending discovery to January 23, 2026, for the limited purpose of identifying possible health-care providers and obtaining medical releases. It also required the parties to submit a status update by January 9, 2026.
What happened
Akaniyene William Etuk’s case against the New York City Department of the Homeless and others involves claims of false arrest and excessive force from his March 30, 2023 arrest. During a deposition, Etuk testified that he received mental-health treatment after a 2015 incarceration, and Defendants sought records of that treatment.
The provider Etuk identified reported having no treatment records. After Etuk identified no alternative provider, Defendants used insurance authorizations to try to locate the treatment source, but the insurance records had not yet arrived. Etuk opposed the extension, arguing that the requested discovery was intrusive and irrelevant.
Judge Katharine H. Parker found good cause because Defendants had acted diligently and the delay resulted from obtaining records from a third party. The court granted the extension, limited to identifying health-care providers and obtaining releases, set January 23, 2026, as the deadline, and ordered a status update by January 9, 2026.
The detailed version
- Etuk v. New York City Department of the Homeless · No. 1:24-cv-04967
- Ronnie Abrams
- Nov. 25, 2025
Background
The case concerns Etuk’s claims of false arrest and excessive force arising from his March 30, 2023 arrest. During fact discovery, including depositions, Etuk testified that he received mental-health treatment in California after his 2015 incarceration. Based on that testimony, Defendants sought records of the treatment.
The court had ordered Etuk to provide signed authorizations for the provider he identified, and he did so. That provider reported having no record of treating him. Etuk identified no other provider. Defendants then prepared authorizations for Etuk’s insurance records to identify the source of the treatment described in his deposition. Etuk signed those authorizations on November 10, 2025, but the insurance records had not yet been produced.
Discovery-extension request
Defendants asked for a 60-day extension of the discovery deadline. Etuk opposed the request, arguing that the requested extension and discovery were overly intrusive and not relevant.
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16(b)(4), a scheduling deadline may be changed only for good cause and with the judge’s consent. Good cause generally requires an objectively sufficient reason why the deadline could not reasonably be met despite the requesting party’s diligence. The court may also consider prejudice and must account for the rules’ goals of resolving cases justly, quickly, and inexpensively while limiting discovery that could have been obtained earlier.
Court’s reasoning
The court found good cause. Defendants had pursued the treatment records diligently, but the identified provider had no records, Etuk had identified no alternative provider, and the insurance records were still pending. The court concluded that the delay resulted from third-party record collection rather than a lack of effort by Defendants.
The court also found that a limited extension would not prejudice Etuk because discovery was already well advanced and the extension was narrowly directed at the outstanding insurance-record request. The court stated that the extension was the final extension of discovery.
Order
The request for an extension was granted. Fact discovery was extended only to allow Defendants to identify health-care providers and obtain medical releases if they discovered a provider who treated Etuk. The court stated that all other fact discovery should already be complete.
The deadline for this limited discovery was extended to January 23, 2026. The parties were ordered to provide a status update by January 9, 2026. The Clerk was directed to terminate the motion at ECF No. 108 and mail a copy of the order to Etuk.
Read the full 5-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.