Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Feb. 3, 2023

Shargani v. New York City Department Of Environmental Protection

Judge
Alvin Hellerstein
Docket
1:21-cv-00337
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
10
DiscoveryCivil ProcedurePro Se
In one sentence

In Shargani v. City of New York, Judge Hellerstein denied the City’s discovery motion as procedurally defective because it lacked the requested discovery.

Who this affects

Paul Shargani and the City of New York were affected by the denial of the City’s motion to compel discovery. The order also names Dennis Delaney as a defendant, but the motion papers stated that no appearance was being made for him because he allegedly had not been properly served.

What happened

In Shargani v. City of New York, Paul Shargani sued the City of New York and Dennis Delaney over alleged workplace discrimination and harassment based on race, national origin, and religion. The supplied motion papers said Shargani was proceeding without a lawyer.

The City asked the court to require Shargani to provide initial disclosures, answer interrogatories, produce documents, and appear for a deposition. The City said Shargani had sent more than 400 pages of documents but had not provided written answers or identified which documents responded to which requests.

Judge Alvin K. Hellerstein denied the motion as procedurally defective because the requested discovery was not attached. The Clerk of Court was directed to terminate ECF No. 70.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
Shargani v. New York City Department Of Environmental Protection · No. 1:21-cv-00337
Judge
Alvin Hellerstein
Date
Feb. 3, 2023

Background

The caption names Paul Shargani as plaintiff and the City of New York and Dennis Delaney as defendants. The motion papers stated that Shargani alleged discrimination and harassment during his employment with the New York City Department of Environmental Protection based on race, national origin, and religion, under Title VII, the New York State Human Rights Law, and the New York City Human Rights Law.

The motion papers further stated that the City served initial disclosures, interrogatories, and document requests on July 8, 2022, and followed up in November and December 2022. According to the City, Shargani did not provide complete written responses or initial disclosures. The papers said that Shargani later sent more than 400 pages of documents, but the documents were not identified as responses to particular requests and did not answer the interrogatories. The papers also stated that Shargani was proceeding without a lawyer.

Motion

The City moved under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(a) for an order compelling Shargani to provide initial disclosures, answer the City’s interrogatories, respond to its document requests, produce responsive documents, and appear for a deposition. The City also asked for an order warning that failure to comply could result in dismissal for failure to prosecute.

Ruling

Judge Alvin K. Hellerstein denied the motion as procedurally defective because the requested discovery was not attached. The Clerk of Court was directed to terminate ECF No. 70. The order did not decide the underlying discrimination or harassment claims and did not grant the City’s requested discovery relief.

The authoritative version

Read the full 10-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.