Riddenhour v. City of Mount Vernon
- Kenneth Karas
- 7:24-cv-02055
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Riddenhour v. City of Mount Vernon, Judge Karas adjourned the initial conference while defendants sought sealed criminal records.
Plaintiff Lawsen Riddenhour; the County Defendants—the County of Westchester Department of Public Safety, Westchester County Police Department, and County of Westchester; and the City Defendants—the City of Mount Vernon, City of Mount Vernon Police Department, and Detective Camilo Antonini.
What happened
In Riddenhour v. City of Mount Vernon, the County Defendants asked to postpone the April 8, 2024 initial conference and extend the deadline for proposing a case-management and discovery schedule. The plaintiff joined the request, and the City Defendants agreed.
The County Defendants said they needed a release allowing access to sealed criminal records connected to the prosecution underlying the plaintiff’s claims. They argued that receiving those records before responding to the complaint could avoid unnecessary discovery. The request did not ask the court to decide whether the claims were valid.
The court ordered that the April 8 conference be adjourned. The text does not state the new conference date or separately describe the ruling on the requested deadline extension. Judge Kenneth M. Karas issued the order.
The detailed version
- Riddenhour v. City of Mount Vernon · No. 7:24-cv-02055
- Kenneth Karas
- Apr. 2, 2024
Background
Plaintiff Lawsen Riddenhour brought this action concerning an underlying prosecution that he alleges was vacated on the Westchester County District Attorney’s motion on September 29, 2023. The complaint allegedly concerns drug sales on June 14, 2017, and July 6, 2017, and alleges that Riddenhour was incarcerated for one year. The County Defendants stated that their records showed a different offense and prosecution, and that Riddenhour had not provided them with a release for the sealed records from the prosecution described in the complaint.
The defendants removed the action from New York state court to federal court on March 19, 2024. On March 25, 2024, the case was designated for participation in a Southern District of New York plan for certain civil-rights cases against police departments in specified counties. The County Defendants stated that, under that plan, service on them was not complete until they received a release for the sealed criminal records, and that their time to answer or otherwise respond would run for 60 days after receiving the release.
Motion and Positions
The County Defendants requested an adjournment of the initial conference, which was scheduled for April 8, 2024, until 60 days after Riddenhour served the requested release. They also requested an extension of the deadline to submit a proposed case-management and discovery schedule until 5:00 p.m. on the evening before the adjourned conference. The County Defendants identified this as their first request. Riddenhour joined the request, and the City Defendants consented.
The County Defendants argued that sealed criminal records might be relevant to a motion to dismiss, which is a request to end claims at an early stage based on the pleadings or other permitted materials. They said that setting a discovery schedule before receiving the records could require them to spend substantial discovery time obtaining documents that should be available before they responded to the complaint.
Ruling
The order states: “The April 8 conference is adjourned.” It then states “Ordered.” The text provided does not identify the new conference date and does not separately state whether the requested extension of the proposed discovery-schedule deadline was granted. The court did not decide the merits of Riddenhour’s claims.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.