Torres v. City of New York
- Edgardo Ramos
- 1:19-cv-06332
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Torres v. City of New York, Judge Ramos denied Torres’s premature discovery motion without prejudice and directed the parties to meet and confer.
Wilfredo Torres and the defendants in the case, particularly the City and the unidentified defendants involved in the discovery request.
What happened
Torres v. City of New York concerns Wilfredo Torres’s constitutional claims about a raid of his apartment. Torres was representing himself, and several defendants were identified only as John Does.
Torres asked the court to require production of police body-camera videos, notes, and other official documents. The City opposed, arguing that discovery had not begun, Torres had not served a discovery request or met and conferred, and the John Doe officers had not been identified.
Judge Edgardo Ramos found the request premature and denied it without prejudice, allowing Torres to renew it at the appropriate time. The court directed the parties to meet and confer about discovery after the City complied with the order requiring identification of the John Doe defendants.
The detailed version
- Torres v. City of New York · No. 1:19-cv-06332
- Edgardo Ramos
- July 27, 2020
Background
Wilfredo Torres, proceeding without a lawyer, alleged constitutional violations against the City of New York; New York City Health and Hospitals; Neil Veras; Patricia De Jesus; three unidentified police officers; and an unidentified doctor. The court had previously directed the City, under a procedure requiring assistance in identifying unnamed defendants, to identify the John Doe defendants. The court later directed the City to respond to that order by August 7, 2020.
Discovery Motion
Torres moved to compel production of body-camera videos, personal and official notes, and other official documents from the police officer defendants concerning a February 27, 2019 raid of his apartment. The City opposed the motion. It argued that only the City had been served, discovery had not yet begun, Torres had neither served a discovery request nor met and conferred before seeking court intervention, and the request could not be completed because the John Doe police officers had not yet been identified.
Ruling
The court agreed that Torres’s request was premature and denied it without prejudice to renewal at the appropriate time. The court directed the parties to meet and confer about discovery after the City complied with the earlier order concerning identification of the John Doe defendants. Judge Edgardo Ramos also directed that a copy of the order be sent to Torres.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.