Forman v. New York City Department of Education
- John Cronan
- 1:19-cv-08156
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
In Forman v. New York City Department of Education, Judge Cronan ordered a telephone conference; the text does not state whether he granted or denied reopening discovery.
Erik Forman and the defendants—the New York City Department of Education, Julie Nariman, and Yan Wang—were ordered to participate in a telephone conference. The text does not state whether Forman's request to reopen discovery was granted or denied.
What happened
In Erik Forman v. New York City Department of Education, Erik Forman asked to reopen discovery after the defendants moved for summary judgment. He sought additional emails, incident reports, and witness statements.
The defendants argued that Forman had not provided the required sworn statement, had not explained how the information would help defeat summary judgment, and had not shown that he previously tried unsuccessfully to obtain it. Forman represented himself.
Judge John P. Cronan ordered the parties to attend a telephone conference on February 2, 2021. The opinion text does not expressly state whether the request to reopen discovery was granted or denied.
The detailed version
- Forman v. New York City Department of Education · No. 1:19-cv-08156
- John Cronan
- Jan. 27, 2021
Background
Erik Forman, representing himself, asked the court to reopen discovery after the New York City Department of Education, Julie Nariman, and Yan Wang filed a motion for summary judgment and Forman filed his opposition. Forman sought emails from the Department of Education system, communications concerning his 2017 job search, and incident reports and witness statements concerning a March 28, 2016 incident.
The defendants submitted a letter arguing that the request should be denied under Rule 56(d) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. That rule requires a nonmoving party seeking more discovery to provide a sworn statement explaining why it cannot present facts needed to oppose summary judgment. The defendants argued that Forman had not provided such a statement, had not identified the requested information with enough specificity, had not explained how it would create a factual dispute relevant to summary judgment, and had not shown that he previously tried unsuccessfully to obtain it during discovery.
Arguments and analysis in the submitted letter
The defendants further argued that Forman had had six months to pursue discovery, that searching unidentified custodians' emails would be burdensome at that stage, and that the requested materials would not address issues that were already time-barred or covered by Forman's existing testimony. The letter also discussed Forman's allegations that a performance rating retaliated against him for First Amendment activity and affected his ability to obtain another Department of Education position.
The opinion text provided is principally the defendants' submission. It does not contain a judicial analysis expressly adopting those arguments or an express ruling granting or denying Forman's request to reopen discovery.
Ruling and disposition
Judge John P. Cronan ordered the parties to appear for a telephone conference on February 2, 2021, at 12:30 p.m. The text does not state a separate disposition of the request to reopen discovery. Because the order concerns discovery rather than the merits of the underlying claims, this is classified as a procedural order.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.