Bah v. City of New York
- Analisa Torres
- 1:20-cv-00263
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Bah v. City of New York, Judge Parker set discovery deadlines and procedures after the parties’ initial conference.
The parties and their counsel, who must follow the discovery deadlines, limits, procedures, and reporting requirement in the scheduling order.
What happened
Bah v. City of New York is a civil case in which the parties appeared for an initial case-management conference on July 14, 2022.
The court set November 14, 2022, as the deadline to complete fact discovery and established deadlines for document requests, interrogatories, an electronic-discovery plan, depositions, and a joint status letter. Each party was limited to 10 depositions.
Judge Katharine H. Parker entered the scheduling order under Rule 16 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The order addressed case management and discovery; it did not decide the underlying claims.
The detailed version
- Bah v. City of New York · No. 1:20-cv-00263
- Analisa Torres
- July 14, 2022
Nature of the Order
This is a scheduling order entered after the parties appeared for an initial case-management conference. The court entered it under Rule 16 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which governs case management and scheduling. The order does not resolve the parties’ underlying claims.
Discovery Deadlines
The deadline to complete fact discovery was set for November 14, 2022. Initial requests for production of documents and initial interrogatories were due August 15, 2022. Responses to the initial document requests were due September 16, 2022, and subsequent interrogatories were due October 14, 2022.
The parties were required to submit a proposed electronic-discovery protocol by September 16, 2022. Depositions had to be completed by November 14, 2022, and each party was limited to 10 depositions.
Discovery Requirements
The court directed counsel to comply with Rules 1 and 26(b)(1), which address the fair, efficient, and properly limited conduct of discovery. It warned that broad requests for “any and all” documents on a broad topic are presumptively improper. The court also stated that an objection that does not adequately explain its grounds may be treated as forfeited, except as to privilege, under the principles discussed in the cited authorities.
The parties were instructed to follow the court’s individual procedures for resolving discovery disputes. Where possible and sensible, they were also directed to coordinate discovery with plaintiffs in the related case Clark v. City of New York, 18-cv-02334-AT-KHP, to reduce costs and avoid duplicative discovery.
Additional Filing
The parties were required to file a joint status letter updating the court on discovery by September 9, 2022.
Disposition
Judge Katharine H. Parker entered the scheduling order. The order sets case-management and discovery requirements but does not state a ruling on the merits of the claims.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.