Galbalbeh v. City Of New York
- Lorna Schofield
- 1:22-cv-00224
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Galbalbeh v. City Of New York, Judge Schofield ordered Plaintiff to propose more discovery to identify unnamed police officers.
Plaintiff Abubalcarr Galbalbeh, the City of New York, and the unidentified New York City Police Department officers named as John Doe defendants.
What happened
In Galbalbeh v. City Of New York, Plaintiff sought discovery about officers he says assaulted and arrested him. The officers were identified only as John Doe defendants, and Plaintiff said the City had not meaningfully participated in discovery.
The parties disagreed about whether paper discovery was complete, and no depositions had occurred. Plaintiff requested several forms of relief, including additional discovery, permission to amend his complaint, and permission to seek other court action against the City’s defenses.
Judge Lorna G. Schofield ordered Plaintiff to file a letter by December 9, 2022, explaining what additional discovery he wanted to identify the John Doe defendants and how that discovery could help. The order did not state that the court granted or denied Plaintiff’s discovery motion.
The detailed version
- Galbalbeh v. City Of New York · No. 1:22-cv-00224
- Lorna Schofield
- Dec. 1, 2022
Background
The case concerns claims by Abubalcarr Galbalbeh against the City of New York and other defendants. The complaint also named unidentified New York City Police Department officers as John Doe defendants. Plaintiff alleged that these officers assaulted and arrested him.
The case-management plan set November 3, 2022, as the deadline for fact discovery. Before that deadline, Plaintiff filed a letter motion to compel discovery, alleging that the City had not meaningfully participated in discovery and had not identified the John Doe defendants. The court held a conference on November 2, 2022, and then directed the parties to propose next steps.
On November 9, 2022, Plaintiff requested several forms of relief, including a stipulation of facts concerning discovery, permission to amend the complaint to add claims, and permission to move to strike the City’s affirmative defenses and seek summary judgment. The City opposed that relief. The parties also disagreed about whether paper discovery was complete, and no depositions had been taken.
Court’s Reasoning
The court noted that a person who cannot identify the alleged wrongdoer cannot proceed against that person. It also cited decisions stating that claims against unidentified law-enforcement personnel may be dismissed when the plaintiff has had an opportunity for discovery but still cannot identify them. At the same time, the court recognized the public policy favoring decisions on the merits.
Order
Judge Lorna G. Schofield ordered Plaintiff to file a letter by December 9, 2022, proposing any further discovery he wanted to identify the John Doe defendants. The letter had to address, particularly in light of the cited cases, whether Plaintiff wanted to subpoena Defendant Justin Rodriguez, non-party Officer Shynell Parris-Mitchell, or any commanding officers or desk sergeants. Plaintiff also had to explain how the requested discovery could help identify the John Doe defendants and, if he had not already sought it from the relevant person, explain why.
The order did not expressly grant or deny Plaintiff’s motion to compel or his other requested relief.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.