Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Apr. 27, 2021

Walker v. Triborough Bridge and Tunnel Authority

Judge
Valerie Caproni
Docket
1:21-cv-00474
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
2
DiscoveryCivil Procedure
In one sentence

In Walker v. Triborough Bridge and Tunnel Authority, Judge Caproni denied defendants’ request to adjourn the May 7 conference.

Who this affects

Kellie Walker and the defendants—Triborough Bridge and Tunnel Authority, doing business as MTA Bridges and Tunnels, Victor Muallem, and Sharon Gallo-Kotcher—were required to proceed toward the May 7 conference and meet the April 29 submission deadline. The discovery-stay request remained undecided.

What happened

In Kellie Walker v. Triborough Bridge and Tunnel Authority, the defendants asked the court to postpone the May 7 initial pretrial conference because their motion to dismiss was pending. They also asked the court to pause discovery while that motion was considered.

The court denied the request to postpone the conference. It required the parties to submit a joint letter and proposed Case Management Plan by April 29, as previously ordered.

Judge Caproni directed the parties to be prepared to discuss the request to pause discovery at the May 7 conference. The court did not decide the discovery request in this order.

The detailed version

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

Case
Walker v. Triborough Bridge and Tunnel Authority · No. 1:21-cv-00474
Judge
Valerie Caproni
Date
Apr. 27, 2021

Background

The defendants—Triborough Bridge and Tunnel Authority, doing business as MTA Bridges and Tunnels, Victor Muallem, and Sharon Gallo-Kotcher—had moved to dismiss Walker’s complaint in its entirety. The court had set a briefing schedule requiring Walker to respond to the motion or amend her complaint by May 11, 2021, with a possible defense reply due May 25.

Because the motion to dismiss was pending, the defendants asked the court to adjourn the initial pretrial conference scheduled for May 7. They also asked the court to stay, or pause, discovery while the court considered the motion to dismiss. Walker’s counsel did not consent to the requested adjournment and stated that Walker intended to proceed with discovery.

Ruling

The court denied the defendants’ request to adjourn the May 7 initial pretrial conference. The parties were ordered to submit their joint letter and proposed Case Management Plan by April 29, 2021, consistent with the court’s earlier order.

The court directed the parties to be prepared to discuss the defendants’ request to stay discovery at the May 7 conference. This order did not decide whether discovery would be stayed, and it did not decide the pending motion to dismiss or the merits of Walker’s claims.

The authoritative version

Read the full 2-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.