James v. The State University of New York
- Katharine Parker
- 1:22-cv-04856
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In James v. The State University of New York, Judge Parker denied immediate discovery and limits on dismissal briefing, while deferring two other requests as premature.
Jeremy Allan James and The State University of New York; the order controls the timing of discovery and briefing in their case.
What happened
In James v. The State University of New York, Jeremy Allan James sent three letters about discovery and the defendant’s planned motion to dismiss. The letters asked the court to let the case move directly to discovery and to prevent the defendant from seeking dismissal.
The court denied James’s requests to bar the motion to dismiss and to order certain discovery immediately. It said discovery would proceed in stages, with the first stage due February 9, 2023. The court did not decide the defendant’s immunity arguments; it said those arguments would be considered after the motion to dismiss was fully briefed. It also found James’s request to rule that an OCR report was inadmissible premature because no party had yet sought to introduce the report as evidence.
Judge Katharine H. Parker said the case should proceed in the stages set by the court. She directed James to include arguments opposing the anticipated motion to dismiss in his opposition brief and to refrain from further applications until briefing was complete, except for requests for extensions or adjournments.
The detailed version
- James v. The State University of New York · No. 1:22-cv-04856
- Katharine Parker
- Jan. 19, 2023
Background
Jeremy Allan James filed three letters concerning discovery and The State University of New York’s anticipated motion to dismiss. Because Katharine H. Parker was handling general pretrial matters, she instructed James to address future correspondence to her rather than to Judge Engelmayer. She also stated that letters to the court should be no longer than three pages and should not be filed in multiple parts.
Requests and Rulings
James made three requests. First, he sought to bypass the motion-to-dismiss stage, prevent the defendant from moving to dismiss or making dismissal arguments, and obtain certain discovery. The court denied the requests to bar the motion to dismiss and to order the requested discovery at that time. It explained that the civil rules allow a defendant to seek dismissal for failure to state a claim and that courts may consider such a motion before discovery is complete. The court had already ordered that only initial disclosures would occur before ruling on the motion to dismiss, with discovery proceeding in stages and the first stage due February 9, 2023.
Second, James asked the court to provide “judicial review” of the defendant’s argument that it was immune from certain state-law claims. The court said that request was improper at that time. It would consider the parties’ arguments after the motion to dismiss was fully briefed, and it directed James to include his opposition arguments in his brief rather than in separate applications or letters.
Third, James asked the court to find an OCR report inadmissible. The court found that request premature because no party had sought to admit the report as evidence, so admissibility could not yet be assessed.
Effect of the Order
Judge Katharine H. Parker ordered the case to proceed in an orderly sequence. James was directed not to make further applications until the motion to dismiss was fully briefed, except for requests for extensions of time or adjournments if needed. The order did not decide the anticipated motion to dismiss, the defendant’s immunity arguments, or the admissibility of the OCR report.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.