Grant v. City of New York
- Rochon
- 1:22-cv-10375
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
In Grant v. City of New York, Judge Rochon granted in part and denied in part Grant’s letter-motion and granted the City’s extension request.
Earl Grant, the City of New York, the unidentified John Doe defendants, and the attorneys and parties required to participate in the initial pretrial process.
What happened
Earl Grant sued the City of New York and other defendants, including unidentified John Doe defendants. Grant asked for expedited discovery to learn the John Doe defendants’ identities and for permission to amend his complaint after discovering them.
The court found that Grant had not shown that expedited discovery was justified, noting that he had not acted diligently and that expedited discovery was no longer necessary because the limitations period for his federal claim would not expire until September 2024. The court also denied permission to amend the complaint without prejudice to renewing that request after the John Doe defendants are identified. The City’s deadline to answer or otherwise respond was extended to February 28, 2023, and the City agreed to notify Grant within 45 days if it received the relevant Use of Force report.
Judge Jennifer L. Rochon stated in the conclusion that she granted in part and denied in part Grant’s letter-motion and granted the City’s request for an extension. The court also scheduled an initial pretrial conference for March 9, 2023, and ordered the parties to submit the required joint letter and proposed case-management plan.
The detailed version
- Grant v. City of New York · No. 1:22-cv-10375
- Rochon
- Dec. 27, 2022
Background
Earl Grant filed this action on December 8, 2022, against the City of New York and other defendants, including defendants identified only as John Does. Grant then filed a letter-motion seeking expedited discovery—discovery conducted on a shortened schedule—to identify the John Doe defendants. He also sought permission to amend his complaint after those identities were discovered. The City opposed the letter-motion and requested, with Grant’s consent, additional time to answer or otherwise respond to the complaint.
Court’s analysis
The court stated that Grant had not shown that expedited discovery or immediate permission to amend was warranted. It relied in part on its earlier observation that the claimed urgency appeared to be of Grant’s own making. The court said Grant had not shown that he acted diligently to identify the John Doe defendants before filing his letter-motion. It also reasoned that, even assuming the limitations period for Grant’s state-law claims expired on December 15, 2022, filing the complaint and letter-motion only a few days earlier would not have allowed enough time to complete expedited discovery before that date. The court further stated that expedited discovery was unnecessary because the limitations period for Grant’s federal claim would not expire until September 2024.
Orders
The court extended the City’s deadline to answer or otherwise respond to the complaint until February 28, 2023. The City agreed to notify Grant within 45 days if it received the Use of Force report arising from the alleged incident. If that report identified the John Doe defendants, the City was required to provide their names to Grant before February 28, 2023. The court denied Grant’s request for leave to amend without prejudice to renewal after the John Doe defendants were identified.
The conclusion states that the court “GRANTS in part and DENIES in part” Grant’s letter-motion and “GRANTS” the City’s request for an extension. The opinion’s conclusion does not specify which portion of Grant’s letter-motion was granted, while the body explains that the requests for expedited discovery and leave to amend were not warranted and that leave to amend was denied without prejudice.
Pretrial requirements
The court scheduled an initial pretrial conference for March 9, 2023, at 11:00 a.m. It directed counsel to confer about settlement and other matters required for a conference under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16. The parties were ordered to file a joint letter and a proposed civil case-management plan and scheduling order seven calendar days before the conference, unless the case was terminated beforehand. The order also provided instructions concerning counsel appearances, extensions or adjournments, electronic filing, settlement discussions, alternative dispute resolution, and notice to parties or counsel who had not yet appeared.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.