Grant v. City of New York
- Rochon
- 1:22-cv-10375
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Grant v. City of New York, Judge Rochon postponed ruling on expedited discovery, ordering service, a meet-and-confer, and the City’s response.
Earl Grant, the City of New York, and the unidentified corrections officers whose identities Grant sought to learn.
What happened
Earl Grant sued the City of New York and corrections officers over an alleged September 2021 assault at Rikers Island. He asked for expedited discovery to learn the full names of officers identified only by partial information and seven John Doe officers, and sought permission to amend his complaint after identifying them.
The court said it was not prepared to grant the requested relief before hearing from the City. It noted that Grant had not cited authority for similar relief and had not completed the required discussion with the City about the discovery request. The court also said it was taking no position on the statute-of-limitations issue.
Judge Jennifer L. Rochon ordered Grant to serve the order on the City and file proof by December 16, 2022. The parties had to meet and confer by December 21, and the City had to respond to the letter-motion—including the discovery and amendment requests—by December 23. The order did not grant or deny those requests.
The detailed version
- Grant v. City of New York · No. 1:22-cv-10375
- Rochon
- Dec. 14, 2022
Background
Earl Grant brought claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and New York law against the City of New York and corrections officers whom he alleged assaulted him at Rikers Island in September 2021. The letter-motion identified one deputy warden and one officer by last name and badge number, along with seven unidentified John Doe officers. Grant sought expedited discovery—discovery before the usual scheduling stage—to obtain the officers’ full names, identify any additional officers involved in the use of force, and obtain specified records. He also requested permission to amend his complaint after identifying the defendants.
Grant argued that expedited discovery was necessary because he claimed the limitations period for his claims against the City would expire on December 15, 2022. He relied on Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(d)(1), which generally requires court authorization, a stipulation, or a rule-based authorization for discovery before the parties’ initial conference. He argued that his request was reasonable, that he faced irreparable harm without prompt discovery, and that the City would face little burden.
Court’s Analysis
The court stated that it was “disinclined” to grant the requested relief without first hearing from the City. It noted that Grant had cited no authority in which a court granted similar relief under similar circumstances. The court also found that Grant had not met and conferred with the City as required by the court’s Individual Rule 2.E.
The court acknowledged Grant’s claimed need for speed but found no good cause to rule without the City’s input. It stated that the apparent urgency was, in the court’s view, connected to Grant’s filing of the lawsuit near the end of the claimed limitations period. The court said that this delay undercut Grant’s claim of irreparable harm and the reasonableness of the request. The court expressly took no position on the statute-of-limitations issue.
Order and Effect
Judge Jennifer L. Rochon ordered Grant to serve the order on the City and file proof of service by December 16, 2022. The parties were ordered to have a good-faith meet-and-confer by December 21, 2022. The City was ordered to file a response to the letter-motion by December 23, 2022, addressing both the discovery requests and the request for leave to amend the complaint.
The order set procedures for further consideration of the letter-motion. It did not grant or deny Grant’s requests for expedited discovery or permission to amend.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.