Disability Rights New York v. City of New York
- Edgardo Ramos
- 1:22-cv-04493
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Disability Rights New York v. City of New York, Judge Ramos referred the case to mediation and stayed discovery while mediation proceeds.
The plaintiffs, the City of New York, Commissioner Edward Caban, Commissioner Ydanis Rodriguez, and the parties’ ongoing discovery process.
What happened
Disability Rights New York v. City of New York involves a joint request by the parties for mediation and a pause in discovery. The defendants identified in the request are the City of New York, New York Police Department Commissioner Edward Caban, and New York City Department of Transportation Commissioner Ydanis Rodriguez.
The parties said they had exchanged initial information and were ready for meaningful settlement discussions. They argued that mediation could resolve the case before the parties incurred the time and expense of additional discovery, including depositions and expert discovery.
Judge Edgardo Ramos ordered that the case be referred to the court’s mediation program and that discovery be stayed while the parties engage in mediation. He directed the parties to provide an update when mediation concludes.
The detailed version
- Disability Rights New York v. City of New York · No. 1:22-cv-04493
- Edgardo Ramos
- Jan. 23, 2024
Background
The parties jointly asked the court to refer the case to its mediation program and to stay discovery while mediation took place. The defendants identified in the request were the City of New York, New York Police Department Commissioner Edward Caban, and New York City Department of Transportation Commissioner Ydanis Rodriguez.
The parties said they had participated in an initial conference, exchanged initial disclosures, and that the plaintiffs had produced additional discovery materials. After conferring, they agreed they were ready to pursue meaningful settlement discussions. They also agreed that mediation should occur before further discovery, including depositions and expert discovery, because an early resolution could avoid additional time and expense.
Court’s Ruling
The court issued a mediation referral order and stayed discovery while the parties engaged in mediation. The parties were directed to provide an update at the conclusion of mediation. The order did not decide the underlying claims or defenses.
Classification
This is a procedural order because it addressed mediation and discovery rather than the merits of the dispute.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.