Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Mar. 3, 2020

Komatsu v. The City of New York

Judge
Lorna Schofield
Docket
1:18-cv-03698
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
2
Civil ProcedureDiscovery
In one sentence

In Towaki Komatsu v. City of New York, Magistrate Judge Gorenstein set amendment deadlines and suggested postponing a deposition.

Who this affects

Towaki Komatsu and the defendants, because the order set amendment deadlines and addressed the timing of Komatsu’s deposition.

What happened

In Towaki Komatsu v. The City of New York, the court addressed defendants’ February 27, 2020 letter concerning plaintiff’s anticipated motion to amend the complaint.

The court set March 16, 2020, as the deadline for plaintiff to file the proposed motion. Any opposition would be due 14 days after filing, and any reply would be due seven days after the opposition. Plaintiff also had to attach the proposed amended complaint.

The court said the parties should not expect an immediate ruling and suggested postponing plaintiff’s deposition until after the amendment motion was decided. Magistrate Judge Gabriel W. Gorenstein entered the order on March 2, 2020.

The detailed version

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

Case
Komatsu v. The City of New York · No. 1:18-cv-03698
Judge
Lorna Schofield
Date
Mar. 3, 2020

Background

The order responded to defendants’ letter dated February 27, 2020. The opinion does not describe the underlying claims.

Orders Concerning Amendment

The court set March 16, 2020, as the deadline for plaintiff to file a proposed motion to amend the complaint. Any opposition was due 14 days after the motion was filed, and any reply was due seven days after the opposition. The court required plaintiff to attach a complete copy of the proposed amended complaint to the motion.

Deposition and Discovery Schedule

The court stated that the parties should not expect an immediate ruling on the motion to amend. It therefore suggested that plaintiff’s deposition be postponed and rescheduled after the court decided the motion. The court stated that a party could later request an extension of the discovery schedule under paragraph 1.E of the court’s Individual Practices if necessary.

Disposition

This was a case-management and discovery order. It set filing deadlines, required an attachment to the anticipated motion, and suggested postponing the deposition. It did not decide whether amendment would be allowed or resolve the underlying claims. Magistrate Judge Gabriel W. Gorenstein issued the order.

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.