Rodney v. The City of New York

Full title: PATRICIA RODNEY, Plaintiff, v. THE CITY OF NEW YORK, et al., Defendants.

Court: United States District Court, S.D. New York

Date published: Jan 30, 2024

22-CV-1445 (LAK) (OTW) (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 30, 2024)

Opinion

22-CV-1445 (LAK) (OTW)

01-30-2024

PATRICIA RODNEY, Plaintiff, v. THE CITY OF NEW YORK, et al., Defendants.

ONA T. WANG, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.

ORDER

ONA T. WANG, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.

The Court is in receipt of the parties' numerous letters filed in the past week. (See ECF Nos. 165, 167, 168, 169, 172, 173, 174, and 175). Defendants' motion to adjourn the Status Conference (ECF Nos. 168 and 175) is GRANTED. The Status Conference scheduled for February 15, 2024 is RESCHEDULED to February 8, 2024 at 11:00 a.m. in Courtroom 20D, 500 Pearl Street, New York, NY 10007. The parties shall file their proposed conference agenda no later than Tuesday, February 6, 2024. In this letter, the parties will briefly set out the remaining disputes. Ahead of the scheduled status conference, the parties are directed to stop filing letters raising discovery disputes “as they reach impasse.” (ECF 174 at 1).

Plaintiff's opposition to Defendants' motion for a protective order (ECF 165) is due February 22, 2024. (ECF 167). The Court reminds and cautions the parties that it does not provide legal advice or “guidance” regarding procedural or substantive questions counsel may have. (ECF 167 at 1, 3).

The parties' proposed motions concerning Defendant former Commissioner O'Neill will be addressed at the conference. (ECF Nos. 169 and 172).

Plaintiff's motion to compel additional information in response to Document Request No. 32¹ (ECF 173), will also be addressed at the conference, if the parties are not able to resolve this dispute before then.

1 Document Request No. 32 states: “Produce each Individual Defendant's - including the Doe Defendants' - current CCRB history and all underlying CCRB documents, including communications and documents reflecting the ultimate disposition of each IAB complaint or investigation.” (ECF 173-1 at 5). Defendants' supplemental objection and response states: “Subject to, and without waiving, or in any way limiting, these objections or the General Objections, Defendants clarify that they previously produced redacted documents, limiting this request to prior substantiated incidents of discipline of a similar nature or false statements from five years prior to the alleged incident to the date of the alleged incident for defendants. Defendants will provide no further response to this request.” Id. (emphases added).

The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to close ECF Nos. 173 and 175.

SO ORDERED.