Beverley v. New York City Health and Hospitals Corp.
- Edgardo Ramos
- 1:18-cv-08486
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Beverley v. New York City Health and Hospitals Corp., Judge Ramos directed defendants to respond to Beverley’s discovery request.
Mauvareen Beverley and the defendants in the case, including New York City Health and Hospitals Corp., were affected by the court’s direction concerning the discovery dispute.
What happened
In Beverley v. New York City Health and Hospitals Corp., Mauvareen Beverley said defendants had not provided all requested discovery in the case.
She asked for a conference about a possible motion requiring defendants to produce knowledgeable witnesses for a corporate deposition and to provide documents identified during earlier depositions. She said the parties had discussed these issues several times without resolving them.
Judge Edgardo Ramos directed the defendant to respond by December 7, 2023. The text does not show a ruling on whether defendants must provide the requested witnesses or documents.
The detailed version
- Beverley v. New York City Health and Hospitals Corp. · No. 1:18-cv-08486
- Edgardo Ramos
- Dec. 10, 2023
Background
The filing is a letter from Sandra D. Parker, representing Mauvareen Beverley. Beverley stated that defendants had not completed discovery. Discovery is the pretrial exchange of information, documents, and testimony between parties.
Beverley said defendants produced only two witnesses in response to her notice for a corporate deposition under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30(b)(6). She asserted that the witnesses did not cover all listed subjects, including certain medical-necessity matters from before June 2018, and that defendants refused to produce additional witnesses. She also said defendants had not fully produced documents identified during depositions, including budget information, position-line changes, communications, and information about the duties of certain Finance employees.
Plaintiff’s Request
Beverley requested a pre-motion conference concerning a proposed motion to compel. A motion to compel asks the court to order a party to provide discovery. She sought an order requiring defendants to produce witnesses able to testify about the subjects in her Rule 30(b)(6) notice and to produce the outstanding documents. She said the parties had met and communicated several times but had not resolved the disputes.
Court’s Action
Judge Edgardo Ramos directed the defendant to respond by December 7, 2023. The text provided does not state that the court granted or denied a motion to compel, decide whether the discovery was required, or resolve the parties’ underlying claims.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.