Komatsu v. The City of New York
- Lorna Schofield
- 1:18-cv-03698
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Komatsu v. The City of New York, Judge Schofield denied requests for discovery, an amended complaint, and reconsideration.
Towaki Komatsu and the defendants in the case were affected by the Court’s rulings denying discovery, amendment of the complaint, and reconsideration.
What happened
In Komatsu v. The City of New York, Towaki Komatsu, who was representing himself, filed requests for emergency relief, discovery, an amended complaint, and reconsideration.
The discovery requests sought materials both related and unrelated to the remaining claim. The opinion also notes that the Court of Appeals had ruled it lacked jurisdiction over Komatsu’s appeal of an earlier summary-judgment decision.
Judge Schofield denied both discovery requests, denied the request to file an amended complaint, and denied the motion for reconsideration. The court stated that Komatsu had not identified new evidence, a change in controlling law, a clear error, or a serious injustice.
The detailed version
- Komatsu v. The City of New York · No. 1:18-cv-03698
- Lorna Schofield
- Jan. 28, 2020
Background
On January 15, 2020, pro se Plaintiff Towaki Komatsu filed an emergency request for an order requiring the opposing parties to explain their position, along with an affidavit. The request sought discovery related to the case and materials unrelated to the remaining claim. On January 23, 2020, Komatsu separately requested discovery unrelated to the remaining claim.
The order also states that, on January 15, 2020, the Second Circuit held that it lacked jurisdiction over Komatsu’s interlocutory appeal of the Court’s September 30, 2019, opinion. That earlier opinion had granted in part and denied in part the defendants’ motion for summary judgment. On January 22, 2020, Komatsu moved for reconsideration of that opinion and requested permission to file an amended complaint.
Rulings
The Court denied the requests for discovery unrelated to the remaining claim and denied the request for discovery related to the remaining claim. It also denied the request to file an amended complaint.
Judge Schofield denied the motion for reconsideration. The Court explained that reconsideration may be granted when a party identifies an intervening change in controlling law, new evidence, or a need to correct a clear error or prevent serious injustice. The Court found that Komatsu’s request did not identify previously unavailable new evidence, a change in controlling law, a clear error, or serious injustice. The Clerk was directed to mail a copy of the order to Komatsu.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.