Fincher v. The City of New York
- Vyskocil
- 1:19-cv-06206
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Fincher v. The City of New York, Judge Vyskocil granted Sean Fincher more time, denied defendants’ unopposed-motion request, and set January 19, 2021, as the deadline.
Sean Fincher received additional time to respond to the defendants’ summary-judgment motion; the defendants’ request to have that motion treated as unopposed was denied.
What happened
In Fincher v. The City of New York, Sean Fincher, representing himself, asked for two more weeks to respond to the defendants’ motion for summary judgment. He cited losing a flash drive, starting a new job, and lacking access to legal research materials during the COVID-19 crisis.
The defendants asked the court to treat their summary-judgment motion as unopposed. The opinion does not decide that motion or the underlying claims.
Judge Mary Kay Vyskocil granted Fincher’s request for an extension through January 19, 2021, denied the defendants’ request to deem the motion unopposed, and directed the Clerk of Court to terminate the related letter motion.
The detailed version
- Fincher v. The City of New York · No. 1:19-cv-06206
- Vyskocil
- Jan. 5, 2021
Background
Sean Fincher, proceeding without a lawyer, requested a two-week extension to oppose the defendants’ pending motion for summary judgment. A summary-judgment motion asks the court to decide a claim without a trial when the applicable legal standard is met. Fincher stated that he had lost a flash drive containing drafts and case law, had started a new job with a lengthy commute and substantial work responsibilities, and could not access legal research databases because of the COVID-19-related closure of a public library.
The defendants asked the court to deem their summary-judgment motion unopposed. The opinion identifies the request as appearing at docket entry 75.
Ruling
Judge Mary Kay Vyskocil granted Fincher’s request for an extension. The court ordered him to respond to the defendants’ summary-judgment motion by January 19, 2021. The court denied the defendants’ request to deem their motion unopposed and directed the Clerk of Court to terminate the letter motion associated with docket entry 75. The order did not decide the summary-judgment motion or the merits of the underlying case.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.