Knight v. New York State Department of Corrections
- Kenneth Karas
- 7:18-cv-07172
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Knight v. New York State Department of Corrections, Judge Karas approved limited discovery and gave defendants 30 days to complete it.
The plaintiffs received permission to conduct the limited discovery they requested, and the defendants were given 30 days to complete the permitted discovery. The other case deadlines were unchanged.
What happened
In Knight v. New York State Department of Corrections, the plaintiffs asked to reopen discovery for a limited purpose after identifying Nurses Vacca and Lazier as potential witnesses. They sought discovery related to those witnesses’ depositions, including personnel-file information, while keeping the other case deadlines unchanged.
The defendants opposed the request, arguing that the plaintiffs had not acted diligently because they had not earlier identified or questioned certain witnesses. The plaintiffs responded that their decisions about disclosures and depositions were strategic, that they had promptly identified the nurses, and that the limited request would not cause unfair delay or prejudice.
Judge Kenneth M. Karas approved the limited discovery as proposed and allowed the defendants 30 days to complete the discovery. The order did not change the other deadlines.
The detailed version
- Knight v. New York State Department of Corrections · No. 7:18-cv-07172
- Kenneth Karas
- Apr. 27, 2021
Background
The plaintiffs moved to reopen discovery for a limited purpose. Their reply explained that they wanted discovery connected to depositions of Nurses Vacca and Lazier, including potential personnel-file materials and related information. The plaintiffs represented that they had promptly informed the defendants about the witnesses and would not request additional paper discovery from the defendants beyond the limited request.
The plaintiffs also described their earlier discovery decisions. They said the case had originally been intended as a class action involving patients at multiple facilities, which accounted for broad initial disclosures. They said that, after deciding not to pursue the case as a class action, they removed witnesses who were not directly connected to the named plaintiffs’ claims. They also said they chose not to depose several other medical witnesses because they had spoken with them and believed they understood the expected testimony.
Parties’ arguments
The defendants opposed reopening discovery, arguing that the plaintiffs had not been diligent. According to the plaintiffs’ reply, the defendants relied on the breadth of the initial disclosures and the plaintiffs’ decisions not to depose certain witnesses. The defendants also raised concerns about additional paper discovery and whether Nurses Vacca and Lazier would provide authorizations for their personnel files.
The plaintiffs argued that the request did not involve an egregious failure to pursue discovery. They maintained that they had worked extensively on the case, including by hiring experts, taking depositions, producing medical records, and preparing timelines. They asked the court to permit limited discovery relating to Nurses Vacca and Lazier and to allow the defendants to take those depositions after the existing deadline.
Ruling
Judge Kenneth M. Karas approved the application for the limited discovery as proposed. The order stated that the defendants would not be unduly prejudiced and gave them 30 days to complete the discovery. The other deadlines were not changed.
Disposition
The motion to reopen discovery for the limited purpose described in the application was granted. This was a discovery-management ruling; the opinion did not decide the underlying claims.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.