DeBlasio v. Oliver
- Katherine Failla
- 1:18-cv-06842
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 5
In DeBlasio v. Oliver, Judge Failla ordered DeBlasio to provide medical authorization and discovery responses by January 5, 2020, or face dismissal.
Philip E. DeBlasio was ordered to provide a signed medical-record authorization and respond to Defendant Santiago’s discovery requests. Defendants Oliver and Santiago were the opposing parties in the case.
What happened
Philip E. DeBlasio v. Mr. Oliver and Ms. Santiago concerns DeBlasio’s allegations that the correction officers used excessive force against him while he was incarcerated, causing physical and emotional injuries. DeBlasio was representing himself.
The court ordered DeBlasio to sign a medical-record authorization and respond to Defendant Santiago’s document requests and written questions by January 5, 2020. The court found those requests relevant because DeBlasio claimed physical and emotional injuries.
Judge Katherine Polk Failla warned that the court would dismiss the case for failure to prosecute if DeBlasio did not comply. The order did not dismiss the case at that time.
The detailed version
- DeBlasio v. Oliver · No. 1:18-cv-06842
- Katherine Failla
- Dec. 18, 2019
Background
Philip E. DeBlasio, who was representing himself, sued Correction Officers Oliver and Santiago. He alleged that they used excessive force against him on July 6, 2018, while he was incarcerated at the New York City Department of Correction’s Vernon C. Bain Center. He alleged physical and emotional injuries.
Defendant Santiago submitted a letter asking the court to require DeBlasio to provide signed authorizations for his medical records and responses to Santiago’s document requests and written questions. Santiago asked that DeBlasio be required to comply by a set deadline and warned that failure to do so could lead to dismissal for failure to prosecute, meaning failure to move the case forward.
The letter stated that DeBlasio had received several medical-record authorizations and copies of the discovery requests but had not returned a signed authorization or provided responses. It also stated that, during an October 9, 2019 conference, DeBlasio acknowledged receiving the materials and agreed to provide them by December 4, 2019. The court had previously warned that refusing to participate in discovery could result in sanctions, including dismissal.
Court’s Analysis
The court stated that, at the October 9 conference, both defendants represented that they had produced all relevant discovery to DeBlasio and that the only outstanding discovery was to be produced by him. The court found the medical authorization and other discovery requests relevant because DeBlasio alleged physical and emotional injuries.
The court expressed disappointment that DeBlasio still had not signed the medical authorization or responded to Santiago’s discovery requests. The order required DeBlasio to execute the medical authorization and respond to Santiago’s discovery demands by January 5, 2020.
Disposition
Judge Katherine Polk Failla ordered DeBlasio to complete the specified discovery by January 5, 2020. The court stated that it would dismiss the case for failure to prosecute if he did not comply. The order itself did not dismiss the case.
Read the full 5-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.