Bullock v. Montefiore Medical Center
- Katharine Parker
- 1:25-cv-02825
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
Counsel of record per CourtListener. Firm names are approximate.
In Bullock v. Montefiore Medical Center, Judge Parker gave Bullock until August 26 to respond to discovery concerns and warned that noncompliance could lead to sanctions or dismissal.
Shawn Bullock, who must respond to the defendant’s discovery-related letter by August 26, 2026, and the defendants, who may seek sanctions if the discovery problems continue.
What happened
In Shawn Bullock v. Montefiore Medical Center, et al., the court addressed the plaintiff’s alleged failure to provide required discovery and medical authorizations after a case-management conference.
The court gave Bullock, who is representing himself, until August 26, 2026, to respond to the defendant’s letter about the missing discovery. The court also warned that continued noncompliance could lead to sanctions, including a recommendation to dismiss the case for failure to prosecute.
Judge Katharine H. Parker did not dismiss the case in this order. She directed the Clerk of Court to mail the order to Bullock and set the response deadline.
The detailed version
- Bullock v. Montefiore Medical Center · No. 1:25-cv-02825
- Katharine Parker
- Aug. 19, 2026
Background
After a July 23, 2026 case-management conference, the court entered a post-conference order describing its expectations for discovery. On August 7, 2026, a defendant filed a letter stating that Bullock had not complied with the court’s order because he had not produced the required discovery or provided all required medical authorizations.
On August 10, 2026, the court directed Bullock, who is representing himself, to respond to the defendant’s letter by August 14, 2026. The order states that no response had been received.
Court’s Action
Because of Bullock’s self-represented status, the court gave him additional time to respond. The deadline was extended to August 26, 2026. The court warned that continued failure to comply with court orders and discovery obligations could result in sanctions, including a recommendation that the action be dismissed for failure to prosecute, meaning failure to move the case forward.
The court cited Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 37(b) and 41(b), as well as decisions discussing sanctions and dismissal for failure to prosecute. The Clerk of Court was directed to mail a copy of the order to Bullock.
Disposition
Judge Katharine H. Parker issued a discovery-related deadline and warning. The order did not dismiss the action or impose a sanction.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.