Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Oct. 13, 2020

Copes v. The City Of New York

Judge
Edgardo Ramos
Docket
1:17-cv-08413
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
2
Civil RightsDiscoveryCivil Procedure
In one sentence

In Copes v. The City of New York, Judge Ramos granted a conference request about discovery and ordered defendants to respond.

Who this affects

The plaintiff and the defendants in the civil-rights lawsuit, including the individual defendant whose records were requested, were affected by the scheduling and response directions.

What happened

In Copes v. The City of New York, the plaintiff's lawyer said the civil-rights lawsuit involved allegations of excessive force and asked for a conference about missing discovery.

The plaintiff sought records concerning the individual defendant, including disciplinary matters, complaints, lawsuits, arrests, and internal investigations. The letter argued that these materials could lead to evidence relevant to the case.

Judge Edgardo Ramos granted the request for a pre-motion conference, scheduled a telephone appearance for October 29, 2020, and ordered the defendants to respond in a letter of no more than three pages. The order did not decide whether the defendants had to produce the requested records.

The detailed version

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

Case
Copes v. The City Of New York · No. 1:17-cv-08413
Judge
Edgardo Ramos
Date
Oct. 13, 2020

Background

The plaintiff's attorney asked the court for a pre-motion conference concerning a request to compel discovery. The attorney stated that the defendants had not supplemented discovery first served in May 2019 and had not provided all requested records concerning the individual defendant. The requested materials included internal records, command-level disciplinary records, Internal Affairs Bureau records, complaints, lawsuits, arrests, and other disciplinary matters.

The letter argued that the requested information was relevant or could lead to admissible evidence in the plaintiff's civil-rights lawsuit, which the letter described as involving excessive-force allegations. It also argued that state-law privilege rules should not prevent disclosure in a federal civil-rights case and referred to the repeal of Section 50-a of New York's General Municipal Law. These were the plaintiff's arguments; the order did not resolve them.

Court's Action

The court granted the request for a pre-motion conference. It directed the parties to appear by telephone on October 29, 2020, at 10:30 a.m. It also directed the defendants to respond to the arguments in Plaintiff's Document 71 by a letter of no more than three pages, due October 16, 2020. The Clerk was directed to terminate the motion identified as Document 71. The order did not require production of the requested discovery or decide the parties' underlying discovery dispute.

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.