Taylor v. City of New York

Background

The defendants filed a letter motion to compel on July 29, 2020. Michael Taylor opposed it by letter on August 7, 2020. Taylor represented that, after the motion was filed, he served responses to the defendants’ first set of interrogatories and requests for document production.

Court’s Analysis

The court held that, to the extent the defendants sought an order requiring Taylor to respond to those discovery requests, that part of the motion was moot because Taylor had already served responses. The court discussed the possibility that an unreasonable delay in responding could result in waiver of objections, but concluded that Taylor had not delayed unreasonably and that waiver was not warranted under the circumstances described in the order.

Taylor also raised objections to the defendants’ discovery requests. The court expected the parties to try to resolve discovery disputes in good faith. It reminded them to comply with the discovery deadlines set by the court, the Local Rules, and the court’s Individual Rules. If they could not resolve a dispute, the court directed them to follow Local Rule 37.2 and the Individual Rules when bringing the matter to the court.

Disposition

The order treated the defendants’ request to compel responses as moot. It did not expressly say that the motion was granted or denied. Judge Katherine Polk Failla also reminded the parties of their discovery obligations and the procedures for presenting unresolved discovery disputes.