Crespo v. Franco
- P. Castel
- 1:22-cv-07345
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Crespo v. Franco, Judge Cott set deadlines for unsealing criminal-case files and producing information relevant to plaintiffs’ federal lawsuit.
The plaintiffs, the defendants, the New York County District Attorney’s Office, and the parties’ lawyers were affected by the deadlines and directives concerning the state criminal-case files and related information.
What happened
In Crespo v. Franco, the court set a schedule concerning files from the state criminal case against Joseph Franco and information relevant to the plaintiffs’ claims in this federal case.
The parties were directed to submit a proposed order by March 20 concerning unsealing the criminal-case files, meet with representatives of the New York County District Attorney’s Office by March 27 about producing relevant information, and submit a status letter by April 4.
Judge Cott also directed the plaintiffs’ lawyers to provide the order to the District Attorney’s Office. The order addressed case management and discovery; it did not decide the merits of the plaintiffs’ claims.
The detailed version
- Crespo v. Franco · No. 1:22-cv-07345
- P. Castel
- Mar. 13, 2024
Background
The order followed a telephone conference in the federal lawsuit brought by Edwin Crespo and other plaintiffs against New York City Police Officer Joseph Franco and other defendants. The court addressed access to files from the state criminal case, People of the State of New York v. Joseph Franco, and the production of information relevant to the plaintiffs’ claims against Franco.
Court’s directives
The court directed the parties to settle an order, by submitting a proposed order by March 20, directing the unsealing of the files in the state criminal case. In a footnote, the court stated that federal courts have authority in these circumstances to order the unsealing or production of state criminal records when they are relevant to a federal lawsuit.
The court also directed the parties and representatives of the New York County District Attorney’s Office to meet and confer by March 27 to determine the scope and timing of producing information relevant to the plaintiffs’ claims against Franco. By April 4, the parties were required to submit a status letter proposing a production schedule and identifying any issues requiring judicial resolution. The plaintiffs’ lawyers were directed to provide a copy of the order to the District Attorney’s Office.
Disposition and significance
This was a procedural case-management and discovery order. It set deadlines and directed the parties to pursue unsealing and information production; it did not resolve the underlying claims. The order was signed by Judge James L. Cott.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.