DeLuca v. The City Of New York
- Katharine Parker
- 1:21-cv-10777
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In DeLuca v. City of New York, Judge Parker set discovery and case-management deadlines without deciding the parties’ claims.
The plaintiffs, defendants, and their counsel in the case were affected by the scheduling, discovery, and reporting requirements.
What happened
In DeLuca v. City of New York, the parties appeared for a case-management conference on August 15, 2022.
The court set deadlines for initial disclosures, fact discovery, and expert discovery. It also limited further changes to the pleadings or parties without court approval and required the parties to coordinate discovery where possible with a related case.
The court entered the scheduling order and required a joint status letter by September 30, 2022. Judge Parker did not decide the underlying claims.
The detailed version
- DeLuca v. The City Of New York · No. 1:21-cv-10777
- Katharine Parker
- Aug. 15, 2022
Nature of the Order
This was a case-management and scheduling order issued under Rule 16 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The court did not decide the merits of the plaintiffs’ claims or the defendants’ defenses.
Scheduling and Case Management
After the parties appeared for a case-management conference and the court reviewed the pleadings and consulted with the parties, the court ordered that no further amendments to the pleadings or joinder of parties would be permitted without court approval.
The court set these deadlines:
- Initial disclosures were due by August 23,
- - Fact discovery had to be completed by March 23,
- - Expert discovery had to be completed by May 22,
- - The parties had to submit a joint status letter electronically by September 30, 2022.
The parties were also directed to coordinate discovery, to the extent possible, with discovery in In re NY City Policing During Summer 2020 Demonstrations, No. 20-cv-8924 (CM) (GWG). The order required the parties to follow the court’s individual procedures for discovery disputes and to comply with Rules 1 and 26(b)(1).
Document Requests and Objections
The court reminded counsel of their responsibilities under Rules 34 and 26(g). It stated that requests for “any and all” documents on a broad topic are presumptively improper and that objections that do not adequately explain their grounds may be forfeited. The court also cited authority stating that discovery responses failing to state objections specifically and to indicate whether materials are being withheld because of an objection may waive those objections, except objections based on privilege.
Disposition
The court entered the scheduling order. Because the order addressed case management and discovery rather than the merits, this is a procedural order.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.