Xu v. The City of New York

Background

Yan Ping Xu asked the court to schedule a motion for sanctions based on alleged spoliation, meaning the destruction or loss of potentially relevant evidence. Xu also asked the federal court to resolve related state court and administrative proceedings under the supplemental-jurisdiction statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1367.

Sanctions request

At an October 1, 2019 conference, the court had denied without prejudice Xu’s request to move for sanctions because discovery was not complete and Xu had presented no evidence supporting the belief that the alleged “initial evaluation” had ever existed in documentary or electronic form. In this order, the court said discovery should have been complete under the latest scheduling order, but Xu still had not provided support showing that the evaluation existed or had been destroyed. The court therefore found no basis to schedule a sanctions motion.

The court allowed Xu to submit, by December 10, 2019, a letter of no more than three pages identifying specific evidence or grounds supporting the claim that the evaluation existed and was subject to spoliation. Defendants could respond with a letter of no more than three pages by December 17, 2019. The court said it would then determine whether grounds existed for Xu to move for sanctions. The court also directed defendants to file, by December 3, 2019, a letter confirming that they had provided Xu with a supplemental affidavit concerning the availability and accessibility of backup computer data related to any relevant evaluation.

State proceedings and ruling

Xu asked the court to enforce a New York State appellate decision, identified in the order as Xu v. New York City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene, 121 A.D.3d 559 (N.Y. App. Div. 2014). The court ruled that it had no power to exercise jurisdiction over the state court’s decision and said Xu could consider appropriate action in state court if she believed defendants had not complied with it. The court also ruled that it did not have jurisdiction over the state administrative action.

The court explained that its April 9, 2019 order had only required the parties to report the status of the state court action and administrative hearings; it had not ordered those proceedings to occur. The court denied Xu’s request for supplemental jurisdiction. The order was signed by United States Magistrate Judge Robert W. Lehrburger.