Adams v. The Co Op City Department of Public Safety

District Court, S.D. New York·Decided September 20, 2024·No. 1:21-cv-02675·Unknown

Opinion

USDC SDNY DOCUMENT ELECTRONICALLY FILED UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DOC #: SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK DATE FILED: 9/20/2024 EDWARD P. ADAMS, Plaintiff, 21-CV-2675 (DEH) (BCM) -against- ORDER REGARDING SUMMARY CO-OP CITY DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC | JUDGMENT SCHEDULE SAFETY, et al., Defendants.

BARBARA MOSES, United States Magistrate Judge. Party discovery in this action is concluded. Over the past two and a half months, as defendants have attempted to collect documents from non-parties (including the Bronx Criminal Court, the Department of Motor Vehicles, and a hospital), plaintiff Edward Adams has repeatedly objected to any and all extensions of the deadline for filing summary judgment motions. See, e.g., Dkt. 249 at 1 (seeking a "37.2 Conference as to Opposition to Extension of the 7/19/2024 DEADLINE for Dispositive Motion"); Dkt. 263 at 2 ("My dispositive motion is ready to be filed. I'm hoping Magistrate Judge Barbara Moses can provide the plaintiff some indication of a firm DEADLINE[.]"); Dkt. 267 at 1 (asking the Court "to set a firm DEADLINE as to whatever ‘records’ this attorney and her clients indicate was obtained from the ‘Bronx Court Clerks.’ . . There has to be a finality to this quest for what ever records the adverse attorney is alleging she's in seek of or indicating comes from the 'Bronx Court Clerks[.]'") (all emphases in originals). On August 27, 2024, after balancing defendants’ document collection challenges against plaintiff's "desire for a resolution of this action, which requires a firm deadline for summary judgment," I directed the parties to file their summary judgment motions no later than September 30, 2024. See Dkt. 268 at 1. Thereafter, plaintiff continued to express impatience. See, e.g., Dkt. 269 at 1 (advising the Court that he was "looking to file [his] dispositive motion before the

9/30/2024 DEADLINE"); Dkt 270 at 2 (asserting that any remaining discovery "does not prove anything central to this case"). Plaintiff now seeks an extension of the September 30, 2024 summary judgment deadline "until the adverse attorney completes her discovery." Dkt. 275 at 1. In a complete reversal of his previous position, plaintiff states that defendants' "incomplete discovery impedes my ability to

file an effective dispositive motion." Id. (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(d)(1)). He does not explain why. Defendants do not oppose the extension request, but confirm that they are ready to file on September 30 and ask that any further extension apply to all parties. Dkt. 276 at 1. Enough is enough. Since defendants are prepared to file their motion on September 30, they must do so. Since plaintiff provides no explanation for his sudden 180-degree turn, it does not warrant any judicial deference.1 However, in light of plaintiff's pro se status – and in the interest of ensuring that summary judgment briefing remains "an ordered process," Paravas v. Cerf, 2022 WL 203168, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 24, 2022), the Court now sets the following schedule for the anticipated summary judgment motions:

1 Moreover, plaintiff's anticipated reliance on Rule 56(d)(1) may be unavailing. That rule permits a court to defer or deny a summary judgment motion if the opposing party has been unable to "present facts essential to justify [his] opposition." Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(d). In order to avail himself of the rule, however, a party must show, by affidavit or declaration, that he was unable to obtain the relevant evidence himself despite diligent efforts during the discovery period. See, e.g., Gene Codes Forensics, Inc. v. City of New York, 812 F. Supp. 2d 295, 307 (S.D.N.Y. 2011) ("[T]o make a proper showing under Rule 56(d), the party seeking additional discovery must specify in an affidavit: what discovery it seeks and how it will obtain that discovery; how those facts are reasonably expected to raise a genuine issue of material fact; what efforts have been made to date to obtain this discovery; and why the earlier efforts were unsuccessful."); accord Sacks v. Gandhi Eng'g, Inc., 999 F. Supp. 2d 629, 645 (S.D.N.Y. 2014) (rejecting Rule 56(d) claim where plaintiff failed to submit an affidavit explaining, among other things, "what efforts have been made to date to obtain that discovery; and why the earlier efforts were unsuccessful"); Nat'l Ret. Fund v. Caesars Ent. Corp., 2016 WL 6601561, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 7, 2016) (same). Insofar as the record reveals thus far, plaintiff himself made no effort during the discovery period to obtain the files of his underlying arrests and criminal prosecutions, his DMV records, or his certified hospital records. ° Defendants’ moving papers are due September 30, 2024, as previously scheduled. ° Plaintiff's papers in opposition to defendants’ motion and in support of his own cross-motion (if he makes one) are due October 21, 2024. ° Defendants’ papers in opposition to plaintiff's cross-motion and (optionally) in further support of their own motion are due November 11, 2024. ° Plaintiff's (optional) reply papers in further support of his own cross-motion are due November 25, 2024. Principal briefs, including defendants’ moving brief, are limited to 25 pages, double- spaced. See Moses Ind. Prac. § 2(h). /f plaintiff cross-moves on October 21, 2024, his brief (which will function as both a moving and an opposition brief), is limited to 40 pages, double-spaced. Defendants may then have 30 pages, double-spaced, for their brief due November 11, 2024 (which will function as both an opposition and a reply brief). Plaintiff's optional reply brief as to his own motion, due November 25, 2024, is limited to 15 pages, double-spaced. Plaintiff is reminded that in order to make (or oppose) a summary judgment motion, a party must submit a statement pursuant to Local Civil Rule 56.1 specifically identifying each material fact that he contends to be undisputed (if he is seeking summary judgment) or disputed (if he is opposing summary judgment), and must support his Rule 56.1 statement with admissible evidence, typically through declarations or affidavits, which in turn may attach relevant discovery responses, documents obtained from non-parties (properly authenticated), or other evidence. A copy of this Court's motions guide for pro se litigants is attached for plaintiff's benefit. Dated: New York, New York September 20, 2024 SO ORDERED. Yea des DRAG’ BARBARA MOSES United States Magistrate Judge

“| Stef \\ United States District Court A .| Southern District of New York

This guide is intended to be a summary of basic procedures for motion practice. The statements in this guide do not constitute legal advice and may not be cited as legal authority. This guide does not take the place of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, this court’s Local Civil Rules, or the individual rules of practice and orders of the judges of this court. Parties using this guide remain responsible for complying with all applicable rules of procedure.

Introduction to Motions What is a motion? e A motion is a formal way for a party to ask the court to do something. Generally, any time a party wants the court to do something in a case, that party must make a motion. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 7(b).

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Adams v. The Co Op City Department of Public Safety, (S.D.N.Y. 2024).

Adams v. The Co Op City Department of Public Safety (Adams v. The Co Op City Department of Public Safety) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

GENE CODES FORENSICS, INC. v. City of New York
812 F. Supp. 2d 295 (S.D. New York, 2011)
Sacks v. Gandhi Engineering, Inc.
999 F. Supp. 2d 629 (S.D. New York, 2014)