Phillips v. City of New York
- Andrew Carter
- 1:21-cv-08149
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
In Phillips v. City of New York, Judge Cave granted the City’s request for a conference about discovery disputes and scheduled a telephone conference.
The City of New York and the plaintiffs in Paul Phillips, et al. v. The City of New York, et al.; the order required the parties to attend a telephone conference and closed ECF Nos. 43 and 44.
What happened
In Phillips v. City of New York, the City asked the court to hold a conference about disputes over discovery and the plaintiffs’ anticipated amended complaint. The case is identified as 21 Civ. 8149.
The City’s letter also opposed the plaintiffs’ request for early discovery and asked to pause discovery and protect the City from responding to the requests. The opinion does not show that the court decided those requests.
Judge Sarah L. Cave granted the request for a conference, scheduled a telephone conference for February 7, 2023, and directed the Clerk to close the two related docket entries. The order did not decide whether discovery would be paused or whether a protective order would issue.
The detailed version
- Phillips v. City of New York · No. 1:21-cv-08149
- Andrew Carter
- Jan. 24, 2023
Background
The City of New York, through its Corporation Counsel’s office, filed a letter-motion requesting a conference concerning issues raised in letters filed at ECF Nos. 43 and 44. The City’s letter described disputes arising after the plaintiffs filed a first amended class complaint and after the City requested a pre-motion conference regarding an anticipated motion to dismiss. The letter stated that the plaintiffs had served discovery requests by email instead of filing the second amended complaint they had said they would file.
The City asked the court to address four matters: a conference with the court, opposition to discovery before the City’s anticipated motion to dismiss, a stay of all discovery while that motion was pending, and a protective order relieving the City from responding to the plaintiffs’ discovery requests, including requests for admission. The letter argued that the discovery was broad and burdensome and that the City’s anticipated motion to dismiss had strong grounds. The City also opposed the plaintiffs’ requests for discovery concerning class allegations and unidentified defendants.
Court’s Action
The operative order granted the defendant’s letter-motion requesting a conference to address the issues outlined in the parties’ letters. Judge Sarah L. Cave scheduled a telephone conference for Tuesday, February 7, 2023, at 2:30 p.m., and directed the parties to use the court’s conference line and access code. The Clerk of Court was directed to close ECF Nos. 43 and 44.
The order does not state that the court granted or denied the City’s separate requests for a stay of discovery or a protective order. It also does not decide the anticipated motion to dismiss, the plaintiffs’ class allegations, or the merits of the underlying claims.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.