Clark v. City of New York
- Analisa Torres
- 1:18-cv-02334
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
Clark v. City of New York: Judge Parker stayed absent-class-member discovery pending Judge Torres’s ruling on plaintiffs’ objection.
The plaintiffs, the City of New York, and the 50 absent class members potentially subject to discovery are affected by the pause in the discovery deadline.
What happened
In Clark v. City of New York, the plaintiffs asked the court to pause discovery involving 50 people who were not named as class representatives while Judge Torres considered their objection to an earlier discovery order. The City took no position on the request.
The plaintiffs said the discovery would impose significant burdens because they would need to identify and recruit absent class members for depositions about their religious practices and arrests. They also said the discovery schedule would be difficult to complete before the deadline and would not unfairly harm the City if paused.
Judge Katharine H. Parker granted the request. She stayed the deadline for absent-class-member discovery until Judge Torres decides the objection. If the objection is denied, the discovery will be due 60 days after Judge Torres’s order.
The detailed version
- Clark v. City of New York · No. 1:18-cv-02334
- Analisa Torres
- Dec. 29, 2022
Background
The plaintiffs asked to stay, or temporarily pause, discovery involving absent class members while Judge Torres reviewed the plaintiffs’ objection to a December 8, 2022 order allowing limited discovery from those class members. The City took no position on the request.
The requested discovery concerned 50 absent class members. According to the plaintiffs, they would need to identify and enlist those people for depositions concerning their religious practices and the day of their arrests. The City would then depose each class member for one and a half hours. The plaintiffs argued that completing this discovery in less than three months would impose substantial burdens and could be complicated by the holiday season and briefing on the objection. They also argued that staying discovery would not prejudice the City.
Ruling
Judge Katharine H. Parker granted the application. The deadline for absent-class-member discovery is stayed while Judge Torres considers the plaintiffs’ objection. If the objection is denied, the discovery will be due 60 days after the date of Judge Torres’s order. This order addressed discovery scheduling and did not decide the underlying claims.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.