Lurch, Jr. v. Doe
- Vernon Broderick
- 1:22-cv-02324
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In Lurch, Jr. v. Doe, Judge Broderick ordered defense counsel to respond to Lurch’s request for help identifying added defendants.
The plaintiff’s request for help identifying newly added defendants remains pending a response from defense counsel, which the court ordered by February 14, 2024.
What happened
In Lurch, Jr. v. Doe, the plaintiff asked for a second court order to help identify defendants who had recently been added to the case.
The court directed defense counsel to respond to that request by February 14, 2024. The order did not decide the underlying claims or the defendants’ responsibility.
Judge Vernon S. Broderick issued the order on February 7, 2024, under a procedure that allows a plaintiff to seek assistance identifying unknown defendants.
The detailed version
- Lurch, Jr. v. Doe · No. 1:22-cv-02324
- Vernon Broderick
- Feb. 8, 2024
Background
The plaintiff filed a motion dated February 1, 2024, asking for a “second Valentin order” to help identify newly added defendants. The caption lists several named defendants and unidentified John Doe officers.
Court’s action
The court ordered defense counsel to respond to the plaintiff’s motion under Valentin v. Dinkins, 121 F.3d 72 (2d Cir. 1997), by February 14, 2024. A Valentin order is a court directive concerning assistance in identifying unknown defendants.
Result and scope
The order required a response to the plaintiff’s motion. It did not resolve the underlying claims or determine liability. The order was signed by Judge Vernon S. Broderick and dated February 7, 2024.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.