Vett v. City Of New York
- Colleen McMahon
- 1:20-cv-02945
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Vett v. City Of New York, Judge McMahon received a joint request to extend deadlines for anticipated defense motions, but the excerpt shows no ruling.
The scheduling request concerned the plaintiff, the defendants, and their counsel in Vett v. City Of New York. The excerpt does not show whether the court approved the proposed deadlines.
What happened
The supplied text is a joint letter in Vett v. City Of New York asking the court to change the schedule for motions that the defendants expected to file. Discovery had closed, and the defendants planned to seek summary judgment and to exclude expert testimony from Officer Peter Miscia.
The proposed schedule would move the defendants’ filing deadline from June 14 to July 19, 2023. It would move the plaintiff’s opposition deadline from June 28 to August 30, 2023, and the defendants’ reply deadline from July 3 to September 20, 2023. The letter says the parties sought more time because of other litigation, depositions, an inquest, and summer vacations.
The excerpt does not show whether Judge Colleen McMahon approved or denied the requested schedule. It therefore does not establish a ruling on the proposed motions or the scheduling request.
The detailed version
- Vett v. City Of New York · No. 1:20-cv-02945
- Colleen McMahon
- June 13, 2023
Document and request
The supplied text is a June 12, 2023 joint letter from defendants’ counsel to Judge Colleen McMahon. The letter proposes a briefing schedule for two anticipated defense motions: a motion for summary judgment and a motion to exclude the testimony of Officer Peter Miscia, whom the plaintiff identified as a firearms expert.
Background stated in the letter
The letter states that discovery closed on May 15, 2023. It also states that the court’s individual practices required a motion seeking to exclude expert testimony under Federal Rules of Evidence 702 through 705, or under the rule from Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., to be filed by the summary-judgment deadline rather than as a later motion before trial.
According to the letter, the existing deadlines were June 14, 2023, for the defendants’ motions; June 28, 2023, for the plaintiff’s opposition; and July 3, 2023, for the defendants’ replies. The parties jointly proposed new deadlines of July 19, August 30, and September 20, respectively. The letter attributes the requested extensions to the need to brief two motions at the same time, defense counsel’s other litigation obligations, the plaintiff’s scheduled depositions and an inquest, and summer vacations.
Disposition shown by the excerpt
The provided text contains the parties’ request but does not include an order or other statement showing that Judge McMahon granted, denied, or otherwise acted on it. The excerpt therefore does not establish a disposition of the requested schedule or of the anticipated summary-judgment and expert-testimony motions.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.