Fernandez v. O'Neill
- Denise Cote
- 1:19-cv-01862
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Fernandez v. Oktrova, Judge Cote denied Fernandez’s late request to depose two police officers before trial.
The ruling directly affected plaintiff Jose Javier Fernandez’s request to depose two police officers and defendant Amadeo Oktrova’s opposition to that request.
What happened
Fernandez v. Oktrova concerned the remaining false-arrest and malicious-prosecution claims against Amadeo Oktrova, which were scheduled for trial. The court had previously granted summary judgment in part on other claims.
Fernandez asked to depose two third-party police officers. The court noted that the discovery deadline had passed, the request would burden the parties shortly before trial, and Fernandez had not shown that the officers had relevant evidence. Neither officer was present when Fernandez was arrested.
Judge Cote denied Fernandez’s August 4 discovery request. The order did not change the claims remaining for trial.
The detailed version
- Fernandez v. O'Neill · No. 1:19-cv-01862
- Denise Cote
- Aug. 12, 2020
Background
The court stated that it had previously granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment in part. The claims remaining for trial were Fernandez’s false-arrest and malicious-prosecution claims against Amadeo Oktrova. The joint pretrial order was due September 25, and the case had been placed on the October 2020 trial-ready calendar.
Discovery Request
On August 4, Fernandez asked for permission to depose two third-party police officers. Oktrova opposed the request in a letter filed August 10. The court noted that the discovery deadline had already passed. It also found that allowing the depositions would burden the parties on the eve of trial and that Fernandez had not shown the officers possessed evidence relevant to the claims scheduled for trial. Neither proposed deponent had been present at Fernandez’s arrest.
Ruling
Judge Denise Cote ordered that Fernandez’s August 4 discovery request was denied. The opinion does not state that the remaining claims were dismissed or otherwise resolved by this order.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.