Brathwaite v. City of New York
- Barbara Moses
- 1:19-cv-09235
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Grantley Braithwaite v. City of New York, Judge Moses denied defendants’ discovery application without prejudice, allowing renewal after required procedural compliance.
Plaintiff Grantley Braithwaite and defendants City of New York, Detective Mantilla, Detective Haggerty, and Undercover 391. The ruling required procedural compliance before defendants could renew their discovery application.
What happened
In Grantley Braithwaite v. City of New York, the defendants said they served discovery requests on plaintiff Grantley Braithwaite but had not received his responses by the deadlines.
The defendants asked the court to order Braithwaite to answer the requests and to treat most objections as waived, except privilege objections.
Judge Barbara Moses denied the application without prejudice to renewal after the defendants comply with her practice requirements and the applicable local rules, including quoting or attaching the disputed discovery requests and responses.
The detailed version
- Brathwaite v. City of New York · No. 1:19-cv-09235
- Barbara Moses
- Mar. 18, 2021
Background
Defendants City of New York, Detective Mantilla, Detective Haggerty, and Undercover 391 asked the court to compel plaintiff Grantley Braithwaite to respond to their first interrogatories and document requests under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 33 and 34. They also asked the court to deem waived any objections other than objections based on privilege.
According to defendants’ letter, they served the discovery demands on December 3, 2020, and Braithwaite confirmed receiving them on December 7. The responses were due January 2, 2021. Defendants described later efforts to obtain responses and extensions, including a February 12 extension request and a March 9 letter giving Braithwaite until March 16 to respond. Defendants stated that no responses had been served by March 17, 2021.
Ruling
Judge Barbara Moses denied the application without prejudice to renewal. The court required any renewed letter-motion to comply with the requirements of Judge Moses’s Individual Practices, including the requirement to quote or set out verbatim the discovery request and response at issue, and with Local Civil Rules 37.1 and 5.1. The order stated that this requirement could be satisfied by attaching the relevant requests and any responses to the renewed letter-motion.
The provided order did not decide whether Braithwaite must provide the requested discovery or whether his objections were waived.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.