Mason v. City of New York

Background

Andrew Mason’s counsel submitted a letter opposing the defendants’ request to separate discovery concerning Mason’s claim against the City of New York from discovery concerning his claims against Vincent Schiraldi and Kenneth Stukes in their individual capacities. The letter says Mason was attacked by other incarcerated individuals at Rikers Island and asserts claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, including a claim that City policies and practices showed deliberate indifference to violence and unsafe conditions at Rikers Island.

Parties’ positions

Mason’s counsel argued that the request to separate discovery was untimely because the parties had already entered a scheduling order and discovery had been underway for several months. Counsel also argued that separating the discovery would cause duplication because evidence concerning the individual defendants and the City would overlap. The defendants’ arguments are presented through Mason’s opposition letter; the supplied text does not include a separate statement from the defendants beyond the descriptions in that letter.

Court’s action

The court stated that it had received the parties’ discovery-dispute letters at docket numbers 37, 42, 43, and 44. It ordered the parties to appear for a telephone conference about those disputes on October 24, 2023, at 3:00 p.m. The court directed the clerk to terminate the pending motions at docket numbers 37 and 42. The order does not state that either motion was granted or denied, and it does not resolve the parties’ discovery disputes on the merits.