Jones v. The City Of New York
- Vyskocil
- 1:21-cv-10082
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 5
In Jones v. City of New York, Judge Vyskocil ordered plaintiffs to respond by February 17 to defendants’ request to split or pause municipal-liability discovery.
The order affected the plaintiffs and defendants in the case by setting the plaintiffs’ deadline to respond to the defendants’ request concerning municipal-liability discovery. It did not determine the parties’ underlying claims.
What happened
Shannon Jones and other plaintiffs sued the City of New York and other defendants over constitutional claims arising from their participation in Mott Haven protests in June 2020. The case includes claims alleging that the City had unconstitutional policies or practices related to policing protests.
The defendants asked the court either to separate discovery about the City’s alleged policies and practices from discovery about the individual incidents, or to pause that policy-related discovery. They argued that this would make the case more efficient and help the parties focus on settlement. The opinion text presents the defendants’ arguments but does not show a response from the plaintiffs or a decision on the request.
Judge Mary Kay Vyskocil ordered the plaintiffs to file a response by February 17, 2023. The order did not state that the court granted or denied the request to separate or pause discovery.
The detailed version
- Jones v. The City Of New York · No. 1:21-cv-10082
- Vyskocil
- Feb. 13, 2023
Background
The plaintiffs assert constitutional claims connected to their participation in protests in Mott Haven in June 2020. Their claims include allegations concerning arrests and a municipal-liability claim against the City of New York. A municipal-liability claim, sometimes called a Monell claim, alleges that a local government’s policy, practice, or custom caused a constitutional violation.
The defendants’ February 7 letter asked the court to either separate discovery on the municipal-liability claim from other discovery or pause that discovery until discovery concerning the underlying incidents was completed. The defendants said that discovery concerning the individual plaintiffs and defendants was mostly complete, while the plaintiffs’ requests concerning municipal policies were extensive. They also pointed to related consolidated protest cases in which municipal-liability discovery was continuing.
Arguments in the Letter
The defendants argued that municipal liability depends on proving an underlying constitutional violation and a connection between that violation and a City policy or custom. They contended that the plaintiffs were unlikely to establish several asserted constitutional violations, including false arrest and First Amendment claims, and that the plaintiffs’ cruel-and-unusual-punishment and equal-protection claims had legal or pleading problems. These were the defendants’ arguments in support of managing discovery; the text does not show that the court adopted them or decided the claims.
The defendants alternatively asked the court to stay, or pause, municipal-liability discovery until after discovery and dispositive-motion practice on the underlying claims. They relied on Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 26 and 42 and cited decisions discussing staged discovery and separate trials.
What the Court Ordered
The text ends with the court’s order that the plaintiffs file a response to the defendants’ letter by February 17, 2023. It does not state that the court granted or denied the request to separate discovery, stayed discovery, dismissed any claim, or decided the merits of the plaintiffs’ constitutional claims. Judge Mary Kay Vyskocil signed the order on February 13, 2023.
Read the full 5-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.