Boodhoo Jr. v. City of New York et al.

S.D. New York

Boodhoo Jr. v. City of New York et al.

DecidedOctober 30, 2025

Docket1:24-cv-04727

StatusUnknown

This text of Boodhoo Jr. v. City of New York et al. (Boodhoo Jr. v. City of New York et al.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, S.D. New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Boodhoo Jr. v. City of New York et al., (S.D.N.Y. 2025).

Pincite

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK BOODHOO JR., Plaintiff, v. 24-CV-4727 (DEH) CITY OF NEW YORK et al., ORDER Defendants.

DALE E. HO, United States District Judge: As stated on the record during today’s conference, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff's Motion to Compel, ECF No. 33, with respect to requests for production No. 18 and No. 24. The Court finds that the requested training documents are relevant to a potential defense of qualified immunity that could be asserted by Defendant Iodice. Kent v. Katz, 125 F. App’x 334, 335 (2d Cir. 2005). The Court also finds that any disciplinary records relating to conduct similar to that alleged in the complaint, including but not limited to arrests or the use of force, are relevant and discoverable at this stage. Gibbs v. City of New York, No. 06 Civ. 5112 (ILG) (VVP), 2008 WL 314358, at *1 (E.D.N.Y. Feb. 4, 2008). Due to Plaintiffs willingness to limit the request only to disciplinary records for conduct within the last ten years, the Court finds the request proportionate to the needs of the case. The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to terminate ECF No 33. The parties are directed to meet and confer on reasonable search terms for training documents. If the parties cannot agree, they may return to the Court for further guidance. SO ORDERED. Dated: October 30, 2025 New York, New York A A

DALE E. HO United States District Judge

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK BOODHOO JR., Plaintiff, v. 24-CV-4727 (DEH) CITY OF NEW YORK et al., ORDER Defendants.

DALE E. HO, United States District Judge: As stated on the record during today’s conference, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff's Motion to Compel, ECF No. 33, with respect to requests for production No. 18 and No. 24. The Court finds that the requested training documents are relevant to a potential defense of qualified immunity that could be asserted by Defendant Iodice. Kent v. Katz, 125 F. App’x 334, 335 (2d Cir. 2005). The Court also finds that any disciplinary records relating to conduct similar to that alleged in the complaint, including but not limited to arrests or the use of force, are relevant and discoverable at this stage. Gibbs v. City of New York, No. 06 Civ. 5112 (ILG) (VVP), 2008 WL 314358, at *1 (E.D.N.Y. Feb. 4, 2008). Due to Plaintiffs willingness to limit the request only to disciplinary records for conduct within the last ten years, the Court finds the request proportionate to the needs of the case. The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to terminate ECF No 33. The parties are directed to meet and confer on reasonable search terms for training documents. If the parties cannot agree, they may return to the Court for further guidance. SO ORDERED. Dated: October 30, 2025 New York, New York A A

DALE E. HO United States District Judge

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Boodhoo Jr. v. City of New York et al., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/boodhoo-jr-v-city-of-new-york-et-al-nysd-2025.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack