Villalobos v. Captain Smith

Nature of the Document

The supplied text is a letter from Susan P. Scharfstein, counsel for the City of New York, asking the court to stay, or temporarily pause, the case. The text does not include a court order or state how Judge Castel ruled.

Background

Jorge Villalobos filed the action on November 19, 2020. According to the complaint as described in the letter, Villalobos was working as a physician’s assistant for Physician Affiliate Group of New York, P.C., which had contracted to provide health care services to inmates in Department of Correction custody. On or about September 24, 2019, an inmate allegedly accosted and kidnapped Villalobos in a clinic at a Rikers Island correctional facility. The inmate allegedly held him against his will and threatened him in a locked nursing station for approximately three hours, until Department of Correction staff deescalated the situation.

Villalobos alleges that correction officers disregarded his safety and created a risk of violence by failing to supervise and restrain the inmate appropriately. He alleges continuing psychological injuries. Cindy Martinez, identified as Villalobos’s wife, asserts a claim for loss of consortium. The letter describes federal and state claims, including an alleged violation of due-process rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

Requested Stay

The City asked the court to pause all proceedings while an unresolved internal Department of Correction investigation continued. Specifically, it asked the court to delay the City’s response to the complaint, then due April 16, 2021, and the initial conference scheduled for May 12, 2021. It also requested permission to provide a status report within 60 days after the response deadline.

The City argued that the investigation could produce documents, interviews, recordings, and other information relevant to the case. It asserted that some investigative materials might be protected from disclosure by the law-enforcement privilege or the deliberative-process privilege while the investigation remained open. The City also argued that it needed the investigation to determine whether its Law Department could represent the four individually named correction officers and whether conflicts of interest might arise.

The City contended that proceeding before the investigation ended could prejudice the individual defendants and prevent the City from preparing an effective defense. It argued that Villalobos would suffer little or no prejudice from a stay because evidence was being preserved and the investigation materials might later make discovery more efficient.

Opposition and Disposition

The letter states that plaintiffs’ counsel did not consent to the request. Counsel opposed an indefinite blanket stay and stated that inaccessible materials could instead be redacted or supplemented later.

The text contains no ruling by Judge P. Kevin Castel. It therefore does not establish whether the requested stay, delay of deadlines, or status-report request was granted, denied, or otherwise resolved.