Sweigert v. Goodman
- Valerie Caproni
- 1:18-cv-08653
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Sweigert v. Goodman, Magistrate Judge Aaron denied further pleading amendments and set limits for discovery on the remaining claims.
George Sweigert’s request to add claims was denied. Both self-represented parties must conduct discovery on the remaining claims within the court’s stated limits.
What happened
In Sweigert v. Goodman, George Sweigert asked to supplement his Second Amended Complaint based on statements in Jason Goodman’s opposition to a motion concerning Goodman’s counterclaims. The court denied the request because it was made in a letter without a proper motion or proposed pleading.
The court also denied supplementation because of the case’s age, the prior amendments, and the nature of the allegations. It additionally found that the proposed disability-related claim under New York Civil Rights Law § 79-n and the proposed malicious-prosecution claim would be futile. The court stated that the remaining claims were for defamation and under the New York Civil Rights Law.
Magistrate Judge Stewart D. Aaron ordered discovery to proceed on those remaining claims, limited each party to 25 interrogatories and 15 document requests, and indicated that written discovery should take the place of live depositions.
The detailed version
- Sweigert v. Goodman · No. 1:18-cv-08653
- Valerie Caproni
- Nov. 6, 2020
Background
George Sweigert, who was representing himself, submitted a November 4, 2020 letter seeking permission to supplement his Second Amended Complaint again. He relied on statements in Jason Goodman’s opposition to Sweigert’s motion concerning Goodman’s counterclaims.
Ruling on supplementation
Magistrate Judge Stewart D. Aaron denied the request because the letter was not a proper motion. The court explained that a request to amend or supplement a pleading made in a brief, without attaching the proposed amended pleading, is improper under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15. The court noted that Sweigert had previously made a proper motion to supplement.
The court also denied the request in its discretion based on the age of the case, the nature of the allegations, and the amendments already allowed. The court stated that, subject to District Judge Valerie Caproni’s action on a report and recommendation issued earlier that day concerning Goodman’s amended counterclaims, the pleadings were closed.
The court further found that additional supplementation would be futile. Sweigert sought to add a claim under New York Civil Rights Law § 79-n and a malicious-prosecution claim based on Goodman’s statement that he had presented evidence to police officers that Sweigert removed, altered, or destroyed evidence by deleting a blog post. Regarding § 79-n, the court found that Sweigert did not plausibly allege that Goodman acted in whole or substantial part because of a perceived mental disability. Regarding malicious prosecution, the court cited the general rule that such a claim ordinarily does not lie against a complaining witness who merely provides information to law enforcement, where the authorities remain free to exercise their own judgment about an arrest or criminal charges.
Discovery and disposition
The court ordered discovery to proceed on Sweigert’s remaining defamation and New York Civil Rights Law claims. Because both parties were representing themselves and the case had a history of conflict, the court limited discovery to no more than 25 interrogatories and 15 document requests per party and stated that interrogatories were intended to take the place of live depositions. The court denied Sweigert’s request for further supplementation and directed the Clerk to mail the order to both self-represented parties.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.