From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Rosario v. City of New York

United States District Court, S.D. New York
Jul 21, 2022
18 Civ. 4023 (LGS) (S.D.N.Y. Jul. 21, 2022)

Opinion

18 Civ. 4023 (LGS)

07-21-2022

RICHARD ROSARIO, Plaintiff, v. CITY OF NEW YORK, et al., Defendants.


ORDER

LORNA G. SCHOFIELD, District Judge:

WHEREAS, in the parties' joint letter dated July 14, 2022, Defendants objected to the admissibility of deposition testimony from Lymari Leon and Fernando Torres on the ground that Plaintiff had not established their unavailability.

WHEREAS, a conference in this matter was held on July 19, 2022, and the parties made a number of oral applications during the conference. For the reasons discussed at the conference, it is hereby

WHEREAS, on July 19, 2022, Defendants filed a letter motion to compel Plaintiff to produce communications with non-party witnesses (Dkt. No. 408).

ORDERED that Defendants' motion to compel the production of communications with non-party witnesses is GRANTED IN PART. Plaintiff's expert shall review Plaintiff's phone, and if the expert identifies any responsive communications, Plaintiff shall produce such communications, including any corresponding metadata, by July 22, 2022. It is further

ORDERED that by July 21, 2022, Defendants shall file a response to Plaintiff's letter motion (Dkt. No. 410) for clarification on the Court's prior rulings on the admissibility of bad acts. It is further

ORDERED that the parties shall meet and confer and by July 22, 2022, file a proposed revised limiting instruction regarding the vacatur of Plaintiff's conviction. It is further

ORDERED that Defendants' objection to the presentation of deposition testimony for Fernando Torres and Lymari Leon is OVERRULED for substantially the reasons stated in Plaintiff's letter at Docket No. 407. It is further

ORDERED that Plaintiff's counsel shall provide Defendants' counsel with three (3) business days' notice if he intends to call Joseph Fortunato as a witness, and at that time, make a proffer regarding the testimony he intends to elicit. It is further

ORDERED that Defendants' objection to Plaintiff's redactions of exhibits is OVERRULED as moot in light of Plaintiff's agreement to redact his exhibits in a contrasting color.

The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to close the motion at Docket No. 408.


Summaries of

Rosario v. City of New York

United States District Court, S.D. New York
Jul 21, 2022
18 Civ. 4023 (LGS) (S.D.N.Y. Jul. 21, 2022)
Case details for

Rosario v. City of New York

Case Details

Full title:RICHARD ROSARIO, Plaintiff, v. CITY OF NEW YORK, et al., Defendants.

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

Date published: Jul 21, 2022

Citations

18 Civ. 4023 (LGS) (S.D.N.Y. Jul. 21, 2022)