Rodriguez v. City of New York
- Gregory Woods
- 1:21-cv-01384
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Rodriguez v. City of New York, Judge Woods ordered a conference and Peter Rodriguez’s participation after missed discovery and conference obligations.
Peter Rodriguez, the defendants, defense counsel, and officials at Elmira Correctional Facility were affected by the scheduling, production, and participation orders.
What happened
Rodriguez v. City of New York concerns a conference about the defendants’ motion to compel Peter Rodriguez to respond to discovery requests. The court had previously ordered Rodriguez to provide those responses.
Rodriguez was brought to the correctional facility’s location for the July 18 conference but refused to participate, so the court postponed it. The court rescheduled the conference for July 21 and ordered the facility to make Rodriguez available by telephone.
Judge Woods ordered Rodriguez to participate and warned that continued failure to follow court orders, including missing the July 21 conference, could lead to dismissal under Rule 41(b). The order did not dismiss the case.
The detailed version
- Rodriguez v. City of New York · No. 1:21-cv-01384
- Gregory Woods
- July 18, 2022
Background
The court held a conference concerning the defendants’ July 11, 2022 motion to compel. A motion to compel asks the court to require a party to provide discovery responses. The court had previously ordered Peter Rodriguez to respond to the defendants’ discovery requests.
Shortly before the conference scheduled for July 18, 2022, the court learned from Elmira Correctional Facility that Rodriguez had been brought to the facility’s location for the conference but refused to participate. The court therefore adjourned the conference.
The document header states that it was filed on July 18, 2022, while the order itself is dated August 18, 2022.
Order
The court rescheduled the conference for July 21, 2022, at 3:00 p.m. It ordered the warden or another official in charge of Elmira Correctional Facility to produce Rodriguez, identified as inmate number 22B2287, at a suitable location equipped with a telephone so that he could participate by telephone with the court and defense counsel.
The order directed defense counsel to send the order to the warden immediately, contact the facility to determine the telephone number where Rodriguez could be reached, and call the court with Rodriguez on the line at the scheduled time. Rodriguez was ordered to participate and reminded that he must comply with the court’s orders.
Warning About Possible Dismissal
The court stated that Rodriguez had failed to comply with at least two court orders: the May 20, 2022 order requiring discovery responses and the order requiring him to attend the July 18 conference. The court warned that if Rodriguez continued to disobey court orders, including by failing to attend the July 21 conference, it expected to dismiss the case under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). That rule permits dismissal when a plaintiff fails to prosecute a case or comply with court rules or a court order. The order itself did not dismiss the case or state that the motion to compel was granted or denied.
Disposition
The court adjourned and rescheduled the conference, ordered Rodriguez’s participation, and issued a warning about possible future dismissal. The Clerk of Court was directed to mail Rodriguez a copy of the order.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.