Frilando v. City of New York
- Ho
- 1:24-cv-08650
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
Frilando v. City of New York: Judge Ho denied permission to call five late-disclosed witnesses because discovery had closed and disclosure prejudiced the City.
Kenneth Frilando and the City of New York; the ruling prevents Frilando from calling Jared Barnes, Harry Chu, Taina Feliciano, Paul Santiago, and Deborah Borlam as trial witnesses based on the late disclosure.
What happened
In Kenneth Frilando v. City of New York, Frilando asked to call five current or former City sanitation workers at trial. He said their testimony would concern an employment examination and the essential functions of sanitation work.
Frilando said he identified the witnesses on July 14, 2026, before a trial date was set, and argued that the City would not be prejudiced because it had produced related job-analysis materials and had time to interview the witnesses. The City planned to object because the witnesses were disclosed late.
Judge Dale E. Ho denied the request. He found that fact discovery had closed six months earlier, Frilando offered no justification for not amending his required witness disclosures before discovery ended, and the late disclosure significantly prejudiced the City. The court also directed the Clerk to terminate ECF No. 49.
The detailed version
- Frilando v. City of New York · No. 1:24-cv-08650
- Ho
- Aug. 19, 2026
Background
Kenneth Frilando moved for permission to call five current or former City of New York employees at trial: Jared Barnes, Harry Chu, Taina Feliciano, Paul Santiago, and Deborah Borlam. The opinion describes them as sanitation workers. Frilando said three could be produced by the City and that subpoenas would be needed for Barnes and Chu, who were former employees.
Frilando stated that he gave the City a list of anticipated witnesses on July 14, 2026, while the parties were discussing possible trial dates. He argued that the witnesses had important testimony about the employment examination at issue and the essential functions of sanitation work. He also said that each witness had submitted a Job Analysis Field Visit Guide used to assess the examination, that the City had produced the guides during discovery, and that the City had time to interview the witnesses before the November 18, 2026 trial-ready date. Frilando was not seeking pretrial depositions.
The parties’ positions
The City planned to object to the witnesses as untimely disclosed. Frilando argued that the City could not identify meaningful prejudice and relied on the factors courts consider when deciding whether to bar late-disclosed testimony, including the importance of the testimony and prejudice to the opposing party. He also referred to a prior related proceeding involving him in which a witness was permitted to testify despite being identified in pretrial disclosures.
Ruling
Judge Dale E. Ho denied the request. The court stated that the matter had been pending for almost two years and that fact discovery had been closed for six months. Frilando had not explained why he failed to amend his required disclosures by the close of discovery. Because a trial date had been set, the court found that the failure to disclose the witnesses during the discovery period significantly prejudiced the City.
The court concluded that these factors favored preclusion of the testimony despite the claimed significance of the witnesses’ testimony. It directed the Clerk of Court to terminate ECF No. 49.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.