Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Feb. 2, 2021

Braxton/Obed-Edom v. The City of New York

Judge
Stewart Aaron
Docket
1:17-cv-00199
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
3
DiscoveryCivil ProcedurePro Se
In one sentence

In Braxton/Obed-Edom v. City of New York, Judge Aaron denied discovery motions, ordered medical-record subpoenas, and set summary-judgment deadlines.

Who this affects

The order directly affected B. Braxton/Obed-Edom and the defendants by denying the plaintiff’s motion to compel, denying the defendants’ cross-motion to compel as moot, authorizing subpoenas for the plaintiff’s medical records, and setting filing deadlines. It also directed the Clerk of Court and the United States Marshals Service to prepare and serve the subpoenas.

What happened

In B. Braxton/Obed-Edom v. The City of New York, the plaintiff asked the court to compel documents from 2009 and 2010. The court found those records were not relevant or proportional because they predated the general release at issue by at least eight years.

The court directed the Clerk to issue subpoenas to Central New York Psychiatric Center and Clinton Correctional Facility for the plaintiff’s medical records. The court said records from the plaintiff’s 2019 treatment might relate to his mental capacity when he signed the release in August 2018. The defendants’ request to compel discovery was denied as moot because they said they sought no additional discovery from the plaintiff.

Judge Stewart D. Aaron also set deadlines for the plaintiff to report on the subpoena responses and for the defendants to file an anticipated summary-judgment motion. This order addressed discovery and scheduling; it did not decide the underlying claims.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
Braxton/Obed-Edom v. The City of New York · No. 1:17-cv-00199
Judge
Stewart Aaron
Date
Feb. 2, 2021

Background

Following a telephone conference with the parties, Magistrate Judge Stewart D. Aaron ruled on competing discovery motions. The plaintiff was representing himself and was proceeding without paying filing fees. He sought documents from 2009 and 2010.

Discovery rulings

The court denied the plaintiff’s motion to compel. It found that the requested documents predated the general release at issue in the action by at least eight years and therefore were not relevant or proportional to the needs of the case.

The court nevertheless directed the Clerk of Court to issue subpoenas to Central New York Psychiatric Center and Clinton Correctional Facility. The subpoenas were to seek all medical records for the plaintiff. The court explained that the plaintiff received treatment through those entities in 2019 and that the records might be relevant to his mental capacity when he signed the release in August 2018. The United States Marshals Service was directed to serve the subpoenas by certified mail.

The court denied the defendants’ cross-motion to compel as moot. The defendants had stated during the telephone conference that they were not seeking additional discovery from the plaintiff.

Deadlines and effect of the order

The plaintiff was ordered to file a letter by March 16, 2021, stating what documents, if any, he received in response to the subpoenas. The defendants were ordered to file their anticipated motion for summary judgment by April 5, 2021. The plaintiff’s response was due June 8, 2021, and any defendants’ reply was due June 22, 2021.

Judge Aaron’s order resolved the discovery motions and established a schedule. It did not rule on the merits of the underlying claims or on any future motion for summary judgment.

The authoritative version

Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.