Taylor v. City of New York
- Katherine Failla
- 1:19-cv-06754
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
Taylor v. City of New York: Judge Failla stayed the case for 60 days during the COVID-19 pandemic and required defendants to file a status letter.
The parties in Michael Taylor v. City of New York, along with the case’s deadlines and discovery schedule, were affected by the 60-day stay. Defendants were required to submit a status letter by June 1, 2020.
What happened
In Michael Taylor v. City of New York, the City asked the court to pause the case for 90 days because the COVID-19 pandemic disrupted government, court, business, and health-care operations. Plaintiff’s counsel agreed to the request.
The court stayed the litigation for 60 days, including scheduled deadlines and discovery. The order did not decide the parties’ underlying claims.
Judge Katherine Polk Failla required defendants to file a status letter by June 1, 2020. The parties could request another stay or submit a revised plan for completing discovery by that date.
The detailed version
- Taylor v. City of New York · No. 1:19-cv-06754
- Katherine Failla
- Apr. 2, 2020
Background
The City of New York requested a 90-day stay, or pause, of the litigation and all scheduled deadlines and discovery. The City’s attorney said that the COVID-19 pandemic, New York emergency measures, reduced in-office staffing, and disruptions affecting courts, health providers, businesses, and agencies impaired the City’s ability to obtain documents, prepare defendants for depositions, and conduct depositions. The letter stated that plaintiff’s counsel consented to the request.
Ruling
In light of the circumstances described in defendants’ letter, Judge Katherine Polk Failla ordered that the matter be stayed for 60 days. The court did not rule on the merits of the parties’ claims.
Next steps
The order required defendants to submit a status letter to the court by June 1, 2020. If the parties believed another stay was justified, they could request one. If they believed discovery could resume, they were required to provide a proposed revised case-management plan by that date.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.