Guillen v. City of New York
- Ona Wang
- 1:19-cv-05655
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Guillen v. City of New York, Judge Wang partly granted and partly denied a discovery motion, extended depositions, and ordered Guillen deposed first.
The order directly affected Edward Guillen and the defendants by setting the deposition order, method, and deadline and by warning of possible waiver, sanctions, or costs for discovery delays.
What happened
Guillen v. City of New York concerned the defendants’ request for additional discovery orders and changes to the deposition schedule. Plaintiff Edward Guillen filed an opposition after the deadline.
The court denied as moot the request for another order compelling amended answers to interrogatories and document requests. It extended discovery until May 7, 2021, but only for remote depositions, and required the defendants to serve their discovery responses within the time allowed by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
Judge Ona T. Wang granted the request for Guillen’s deposition to occur before the defendants’ depositions and directed the lawyers to schedule all depositions before the new deadline. The order warned that delays could lead to waived depositions, sanctions, or costs.
The detailed version
- Guillen v. City of New York · No. 1:19-cv-05655
- Ona Wang
- Apr. 1, 2021
Background
The court reviewed the defendants’ March 24, 2021 letter motion and Guillen’s March 30, 2021 opposition, which the court described as untimely. The motion concerned discovery, the pretrial exchange of information and testimony.
Rulings
The defendants’ request for another order compelling amended responses to interrogatories and document requests was denied as moot. The court extended discovery until May 7, 2021, for depositions only. Because of the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic, the depositions were ordered to proceed remotely.
The court also stated that the defendants’ responses to Guillen’s interrogatories and document requests had to be served within the periods provided by Rules 33 and 34 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
The defendants’ request to depose Guillen first was granted. Although the defendants had not confirmed that the parties had met and discussed the dispute as required by the judge’s individual practices, and although the Federal Rules do not establish a deposition priority, the court relied on Guillen’s repeated delays in the discovery process. It directed that Guillen’s deposition occur before the defendants’ depositions, on a schedule to be arranged by counsel without further court intervention.
Warnings and disposition
The court required all depositions to be completed before May 7, 2021 and warned that failure to meet the deadline could result in a ruling that the depositions were waived. If Guillen did not schedule and complete his deposition timely and in good faith, he risked losing the ability to take depositions of the defendants’ witnesses. The court also warned that failure to cooperate with the remaining discovery could result in sanctions or allocation of costs under 28 U.S.C. § 1927, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 16 and 37(a)(5), or the court’s inherent authority.
Overall, the defendants’ application was granted in part and denied in part. The clerk was directed to close the filing associated with ECF 59.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.