Gjenashaj v. City of New York
- Colleen McMahon
- 1:19-cv-04142
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Gjenashaj v. City of New York, Judge Pauley granted defendants’ request for a conference about plaintiffs’ incomplete discovery responses.
The plaintiffs, Lori Gjenashaj and Qamil, and the City of New York defendants were directed to participate in a conference about plaintiffs’ discovery responses.
What happened
Gjenashaj v. City of New York involves plaintiffs’ claims of civil-rights violations, including false arrest and excessive force, after a non-fatal shooting. Defendants said plaintiffs had not fully answered interrogatories or produced requested documents.
Defendants asked the court to hold a conference about the discovery dispute or order plaintiffs to provide complete responses by a deadline, with possible sanctions. Plaintiffs’ responses were described as late and incomplete, and one plaintiff allegedly provided no responses initially.
Judge William H. Pauley III granted the request and directed the parties to appear for a conference to discuss the discovery dispute and an anticipated motion to dismiss. The order did not decide the underlying civil-rights claims.
The detailed version
- Gjenashaj v. City of New York · No. 1:19-cv-04142
- Colleen McMahon
- Nov. 20, 2019
Background
The plaintiffs brought the action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging civil-rights violations including false arrest and excessive force following a non-fatal shooting. The court had ordered the parties to complete fact discovery by January 15, 2020.
Defendants served interrogatories and requests for documents on August 28, 2019. According to defendants, plaintiffs did not respond within 30 days. Plaintiff Lori later provided handwritten responses that defendants characterized as inadequate and incomplete. Plaintiff Qamil allegedly provided no responses at that time. Plaintiffs later supplied typed, updated responses, but defendants said those responses still did not fully answer questions about claimed expenditures, medical providers, insurance claims, and requested documents.
Legal basis for the request
Defendants relied on Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 33 and 34, which generally require responses to interrogatories and document requests within 30 days. They also relied on Rule 37, which permits a party to seek an order compelling discovery when another party fails to answer interrogatories or produce documents. Defendants stated that they had repeatedly tried to resolve the issue through telephone calls and emails before asking the court to intervene.
Ruling
The court granted defendants’ request. It directed the parties to appear for a conference to discuss the discovery dispute and an anticipated motion to dismiss. The order did not rule on the merits of the plaintiffs’ civil-rights claims and did not state that sanctions were imposed.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.