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

Bell v. City of New York

Judge
Naomi Buchwald
Docket
1:19-cv-05868
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
2
Civil ProcedureDiscovery
In one sentence

In Bell v. City of New York, Judge Buchwald granted a 90-day litigation stay requested because COVID-19 disrupted defense work and depositions.

Who this affects

The parties and counsel in Allen Bell’s case against the City defendants, including scheduled deadlines and discovery; the filing particularly described effects on the City defendants’ ability to conduct the defense.

What happened

In Allen Bell v. City of New York, the City defendants asked the court to pause the case for 90 days because the COVID-19 pandemic had disrupted the New York City Law Department’s work.

The City defendants said that working from home and reduced in-office staffing made it difficult to obtain documents, prepare defendants for depositions, and conduct depositions. They also said remote depositions were inadequate substitutes for in-person depositions. Plaintiff’s counsel agreed to the request.

Judge Naomi Reice Buchwald granted the application on April 3, 2020. The order therefore paused the litigation for the requested 90-day period, including scheduled deadlines and discovery.

The detailed version

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

Case
Bell v. City of New York · No. 1:19-cv-05868
Judge
Naomi Buchwald
Date
Apr. 3, 2020

Background

The City defendants requested a 90-day stay, meaning a temporary pause, of the litigation, including all scheduled deadlines and discovery. The request was made in light of the COVID-19 pandemic. The filing stated that New York State and New York City had declared states of emergency and that a state executive order required nonessential personnel to stay home.

Arguments

The City defendants stated that the New York City Law Department had moved most of its workforce to working from home and that the resulting disruption affected its ability to defend the case. The filing identified obtaining relevant documents, preparing defendants for depositions, and conducting depositions as examples. It also argued that remote depositions presented significant logistical challenges and were an inadequate substitute for in-person depositions. Plaintiff’s counsel consented to the request.

Ruling

Judge Naomi Reice Buchwald entered the handwritten order, “Application granted,” dated April 3, 2020. The court granted the application for a 90-day stay of the litigation, including the requested pause of scheduled deadlines and discovery. The opinion does not address the merits of the underlying claims.

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.