Oakley v. Dolan
- Richard Sullivan
- 1:17-cv-06903
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Oakley v. Dolan, Judge Sullivan set briefing deadlines and stayed discovery while defendants pursued summary judgment.
Charles Oakley and the defendants, James Dolan et al., were subject to the briefing schedule and discovery stay.
What happened
In Oakley v. Dolan, the court set a schedule for the parties’ planned motions. Oakley was to file a motion to amend his complaint, while the defendants were to file a motion for summary judgment, supporting papers, and a required statement of undisputed facts.
The court set deadlines for oppositions and reply briefs in February and March 2021. It also specified accessible video formats for any video evidence submitted with the summary-judgment motion.
Judge Richard J. Sullivan stayed discovery until the court decided the defendants’ summary-judgment motion. The court said Oakley could argue under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(d) that more discovery was needed to oppose the motion.
The detailed version
- Oakley v. Dolan · No. 1:17-cv-06903
- Richard Sullivan
- Dec. 22, 2020
Background
This order followed a pre-motion conference. The court addressed the parties’ contemplated motions rather than deciding the underlying claims. Oakley planned to move to amend his complaint, and the defendants planned to move for summary judgment, which is a request for judgment without a trial when the relevant facts are not genuinely disputed.
Briefing Schedule
The court ordered the following schedule:
- By January 22, 2021, Oakley had to file his motion to amend and supporting brief. The defendants had to file their summary-judgment motion, supporting brief, and statement required by Local Civil Rule 56.1. - By February 19, 2021, each party had to file its opposition to the relevant motion. - By March 2, 2021, each party had to file its reply brief.
The court also ordered that any video evidence submitted with the summary-judgment motion use one of the listed file formats: MP4, MOV, WMV, FLV, or AVI.
Discovery Stay
The court stayed discovery until the defendants’ summary-judgment motion was decided. It found that neither side would be prejudiced because Oakley could oppose summary judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(d) by showing that additional discovery was necessary to present facts essential to his opposition. The order cited a prior related proceeding for the rule’s operation.
Disposition
The court ordered the briefing schedule and stayed discovery pending disposition of the defendants’ summary-judgment motion. It did not grant or deny the contemplated motion to amend or summary-judgment motion, and it did not decide the merits of the case. Richard J. Sullivan signed the order as a United States Circuit Judge sitting by designation.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.