Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Dec. 4, 2019

Cuffee Jr. v. Gonzalez

Judge
Paul Gardephe
Docket
1:15-cv-08916
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
2
DiscoveryCivil ProcedurePro Se
In one sentence

In Cuffee Jr. v. Gonzalez, Judge Gardephe denied defendants’ appeal of a discovery order requiring responses by December 9, 2019.

Who this affects

The defendants’ challenge to the discovery order was denied, leaving the order requiring them to respond to Plaintiff’s discovery requests by December 9, 2019 in place; Plaintiff was to receive the order by certified mail.

What happened

In Cuffee Jr. v. Gonzalez, Magistrate Judge Freeman ordered the defendants to respond to Hiawatha Cuffee, Jr.’s discovery requests by December 9, 2019.

The defendants asked the district court to cancel that order, arguing that discovery had been limited to whether Cuffee could continue the lawsuit after signing a release. The court found that it had never imposed that limitation.

Judge Paul G. Gardephe denied the defendants’ appeal. The Clerk was directed to mail the order to Cuffee, who was representing himself, by certified mail.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
Cuffee Jr. v. Gonzalez · No. 1:15-cv-08916
Judge
Paul Gardephe
Date
Dec. 4, 2019

Background

Magistrate Judge Freeman issued a November 7, 2019 order directing the defendants to respond to Plaintiff’s discovery requests no later than December 9, 2019. Discovery is the pretrial process through which parties obtain information and documents relevant to a lawsuit.

Defendants’ appeal

The defendants appealed Magistrate Judge Freeman’s order. They argued that the district court had restricted discovery to the separate question of whether Plaintiff could pursue the lawsuit after signing a release. The defendants pointed to an April 11, 2019 letter and an April 18, 2019 conference in which they had argued that discovery should be limited to the release issue.

Court’s ruling

The court determined that it had never issued an order limiting discovery in that way. It therefore denied the defendants’ appeal. The court cited the principle that a magistrate judge has broad discretion when handling discovery disputes.

The Clerk of Court was directed to mail a copy of the order to the pro se Plaintiff by certified mail. The order was signed by Judge Paul G. Gardephe.

The authoritative version

Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.