Shim-Larkin v. City of New York

Background

Heena Shim-Larkin, the plaintiff and a self-represented litigant, requested an extension of time to file an objection under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(a) concerning an order dated April 14, 2020. She asked to extend the deadline to November 23, 2020 and requested any other relief the court considered appropriate.

Shim-Larkin said this was her eleventh extension request and that her prior requests had been granted. She explained that she had been contacting the New York County Court law library weekly, but it remained closed without a projected reopening date. She also said she could not find a projected reopening date for the New York Public Library’s research center.

The parties’ positions

Shim-Larkin argued that conducting legal research from home was more burdensome than using a law library because free sources offered a smaller database pool and fewer search functions. She said she wanted to conduct extensive research using Lexis or Westlaw before filing her Rule 72(a) objection.

The City did not consent to the extension. It pointed to Shim-Larkin’s service of a sanctions motion on October 9, filing of a reconsideration motion on October 13, and responses to the City’s discovery-related letter motions on October 20 and October 22. The City argued that the legal research in those filings showed that Shim-Larkin could conduct legal research.

Shim-Larkin responded that the earlier filings involved cases she had already cited, basic legal standards, or cases first identified by the City, and therefore did not require the extensive research she wanted to perform for the Rule 72(a) objection.

Court action and disposition

The document is addressed to Judge Alison J. Nathan and includes the words “SO ORDERED.” However, the opinion text provided does not expressly say whether the extension was granted, denied, granted in part, or whether any other relief was ordered. Accordingly, the precise disposition cannot be determined from the provided text.