Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Feb. 11, 2022

Colon v. Department of Corrections

Judge
John Cronan
Docket
1:20-cv-10130
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
2
DiscoveryCivil Procedure
In one sentence

In Colon v. Department of Corrections, the court postponed discovery indefinitely and scheduled a conference after defendants reported they could not contact Colon, in an order signed by Judge Aaron.

Who this affects

Parris Colon and the defendants, because discovery was postponed indefinitely and the parties were ordered to attend a telephone conference. Colon was warned that failing to appear could lead to sanctions, including a recommendation of dismissal.

What happened

In Colon v. Department of Corrections, defendants told the court that they had been unable to contact Parris Colon since January 11, 2022, and did not know where he could receive mail. They said this prevented them from completing discovery, the evidence-gathering phase of the case.

The court adjourned the discovery deadline indefinitely and ordered the parties to attend a telephone conference on March 11, 2022. The court warned Colon that failing to attend could lead to sanctions, including a recommendation that the case be dismissed for failure to prosecute. It also directed Colon to monitor the public docket or otherwise inquire about the case until he could provide an updated address.

The order was signed by Magistrate Judge Stewart D. Aaron. The case information supplied identifies Judge John Cronan.

The detailed version

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

Case
Colon v. Department of Corrections · No. 1:20-cv-10130
Judge
John Cronan
Date
Feb. 11, 2022

Background

Defendants informed the court by letter that their counsel had last spoken with Parris Colon on January 11, 2022. Defendants said they had been unable to contact Colon since then and did not know an address where he could receive mail. As a result, defendants said they could not complete discovery, meaning the process of gathering information and evidence for the case.

Court’s Order

The court adjourned the deadline for completing discovery indefinitely. It directed the parties to appear separately by telephone for a conference on March 11, 2022, at 11:00 a.m., using the telephone numbers and access code stated in the order.

The court warned Colon that failing to appear could result in sanctions, including a recommendation to the District Judge that the case be dismissed for failure to prosecute under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). The court did not dismiss the case in this order. It also directed Colon, at minimum, to check the public docket or otherwise inquire about the case until he could provide an updated address. The Clerk of Court was asked to mail Colon a copy of the order at the address listed on the docket.

Judge and Disposition

The opinion text identifies Magistrate Judge Stewart D. Aaron as the judge who signed the order. The case information supplied identifies Judge John Cronan. The order’s disposition was to adjourn discovery indefinitely and schedule a telephone conference; it did not enter a dismissal.

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.