Culbreath v. Griffin
- Kenneth Karas
- 7:17-cv-03406
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
In Culbreath v. Griffin, Judge Karas denied defendants’ summary-judgment motion without prejudice because discovery was still ongoing.
Jeffrey Culbreath and defendants Thomas Griffin, Mark Tokarz, and Michael Nagy. The motion was terminated for the time being, and defendants may renew it after discovery is complete.
What happened
In Culbreath v. Griffin, defendants Thomas Griffin, Mark Tokarz, and Michael Nagy asked the court to grant summary judgment. Plaintiff Jeffrey Culbreath opposed the motion and said important discovery about chemical exposure, prison policies, and related procedures had not yet been completed.
The court described several ongoing discovery disputes. Magistrate Judge Lisa M. Smith ordered defendants to produce additional documents and information, and plaintiff said the new material could require more discovery and supplemental briefing. The parties had not told the court that discovery was complete.
Judge Kenneth M. Karas ruled that the motion was not ready for decision. He denied the motion without prejudice to renewal after discovery is complete, directed the parties to provide a status update within 30 days, and directed the clerk to terminate the pending motion.
The detailed version
- Culbreath v. Griffin · No. 7:17-cv-03406
- Kenneth Karas
- Mar. 30, 2020
Background
Defendants Thomas Griffin, Mark Tokarz, and Michael Nagy filed a motion for summary judgment. Summary judgment is a request to decide claims without a trial when the evidence shows there is no genuine dispute requiring a trial. Plaintiff Jeffrey Culbreath opposed the motion. In his opposition, Culbreath withdrew his claim against Griffin.
Culbreath also stated that defendants had not produced discovery he considered highly relevant to his claims involving excessive force and deliberate indifference based on chemical-exposure injuries. Magistrate Judge Lisa M. Smith ordered defendants to produce materials for confidential court review and later ordered production of additional documents and information.
Ongoing Discovery
After receiving the additional discovery, Culbreath said it concerned policies and procedures governing disturbances, the use of chemical agents, and inmate decontamination. He served supplemental discovery requests and indicated that the new material could require additional limited discovery and supplemental summary-judgment briefing.
The parties continued to dispute discovery. Judge Smith ordered production of certain documents and information, held a conference concerning the disputes, and set a schedule for an anticipated motion concerning possible destruction or loss of evidence. The parties had not advised the court that discovery was complete.
Ruling
Judge Kenneth M. Karas held that defendants’ motion was not yet ready for summary adjudication because additional discovery could require supplemental briefing. The court denied the motion without prejudice to renewal after discovery was completed. The court also directed the parties to submit, within 30 days, a letter updating it on outstanding discovery and anticipated supplemental briefing. The clerk was directed to terminate the pending motion. The order did not decide the merits of Culbreath’s claims or defendants’ defenses.
Classification
This is a procedural order because the court denied the summary-judgment motion based on incomplete discovery and did not decide the underlying claims.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.