Nnebe v. Daus
- Richard Sullivan
- 1:06-cv-04991
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Nnebe v. Daus, Judge Sullivan ordered discovery and pretrial steps for a planned damages trial without deciding the parties’ underlying claims.
The order affects the twenty individual plaintiffs set for trial and the defendants by requiring information exchanges, expert reports, and pretrial submissions.
What happened
In Nnebe v. Daus, the court addressed the parties’ joint letter about preparing for a planned October 16, 2023 damages trial. The case involves individual plaintiffs who must show that they requested, or would have requested, an adequate hearing after their suspensions.
The court required the plaintiffs to file expert reports by August 31, 2023 and provide disclosures about their income, education, other earnings, support, and efforts to lease a cab or medallion. The court also set deadlines for proposed trial materials and required the parties to address disputes about tax returns and driver-receipt data.
Judge Sullivan ordered these expert-report, disclosure, and pretrial steps. The order did not decide the underlying claims or determine the amount of damages owed to any plaintiff.
The detailed version
- Nnebe v. Daus · No. 1:06-cv-04991
- Richard Sullivan
- Aug. 13, 2023
Background
The court received the parties’ August 4, 2023 joint letter concerning preparation for a planned October 16, 2023 damages trial. The court reiterated that each individual plaintiff must prove that the plaintiff either requested a hearing or would have requested a constitutionally adequate post-suspension hearing if it had been available and known at the time of the suspension. The court stated that this proof is necessary to show that a different result would have occurred with adequate procedures.
Court-Ordered Deadlines and Disclosures
The court ordered the plaintiffs to file expert reports by August 31, 2023. If the defendants wished to file rebuttal expert reports, the parties were required to confer about a mutually agreeable deadline and seek the court’s assistance if they could not agree.
The court ordered disclosures concerning the twenty individual plaintiffs set for trial as soon as possible and no later than September 11, 2023. It also reminded the parties to submit the joint proposed pretrial order, voir dire questions, verdict form, jury instructions, motions in limine, and—if useful—a pretrial memorandum by September 15, 2023. Responses to motions in limine and legal arguments in any pretrial memorandum were due September 22, 2023.
Scope of Information Exchange
For each individual plaintiff, the court required information and available documentation about net income from use of the plaintiff’s license during the six months before and after the suspension. The plaintiff also had to provide information about gross income from the license and driving-related expenses. The court found this information relevant to determining income that would have been earned.
The court also required information about each individual plaintiff’s highest education or certification level; earnings from sources unrelated to the license during the six months before and after the suspension; means of support if the plaintiff did not obtain replacement employment; and efforts to lease a cab or medallion during the suspension if the plaintiff owned one. The court found this information relevant to mitigation of damages, meaning efforts to reduce the claimed loss, and proportional to the needs of the case.
If the defendants were still seeking individual plaintiffs’ federal income-tax returns, the parties had to file a joint letter about that issue by August 18, 2023. The parties also had to address any remaining dispute over the plaintiffs’ request for data about average daily receipts for yellow-cab and other transportation-license drivers.
Disposition
The court entered case-management and discovery orders concerning expert reports, disclosures, and trial preparation. It did not rule on the merits of the underlying claims, decide whether any plaintiff proved entitlement to damages, or set a damages amount.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.