John Doe v. Kachalia
- Ho
- 1:23-cv-10395
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In John Doe v. Kachalia, Judge Ho ordered Columbia University to provide Defendant Kachalia’s service address to the pro se plaintiff.
John Doe, Columbia University, and Neel H. Kachalia are affected. Columbia University must provide Kachalia’s contact information, including a current service address, to John Doe and the court.
What happened
John Doe told the court that he was having difficulty locating Defendant Neel H. Kachalia’s current address for service. The order directed Columbia University to provide information that could help locate Kachalia for service.
The court ordered Columbia University to file a letter giving Kachalia’s contact information, including the current address where Kachalia could be served. Columbia University must provide the information to John Doe and the court by February 6, 2024. The letter may redact sensitive information under the court’s practices.
Judge Dale E. Ho issued the order on January 9, 2024. The clerk was directed to mail a copy to John Doe, who was proceeding without a lawyer.
The detailed version
- John Doe v. Kachalia · No. 1:23-cv-10395
- Ho
- Jan. 9, 2024
Background
John Doe sent the court a letter explaining that he was having difficulty locating Defendant Neel H. Kachalia’s current address for service. The opinion cites an earlier Second Circuit case concerning assistance in identifying an individual for service.
Order
The court ordered Defendant Columbia University to file a letter providing Kachalia’s contact information, including the current address where Kachalia may be served. Columbia University must provide the information to John Doe and the court by February 6, 2024. The letter may include redactions of sensitive information consistent with Paragraph 6(b) of the judge’s individual practices.
The clerk was directed to mail the order to John Doe, who was proceeding without a lawyer. The order addressed assistance with service and did not decide the underlying claims.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.