Vincent Artis v. Phelps Hospital Association et al.

• Court: District Court, S.D. New York
• Decided: November 26, 2025
• Docket: 7:23-cv-09827
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ene eeeeneeen □□ X VINCENT ARTIS Motion to Extend Discover: Plaintiff 7:23-cv-09827-KMK -against- PHELPS HOSPITAL ASSOCIATION et, al, Defendants panne eee eee X

I (Vincent Artis) am not a lawyer nor do | practice law.

| would like all the phone records, texts, e-mails, curriers, and social media of the following . individuals: Assistant Director Tony, Director Mario, Supervisor Diego, and Jeff Meat. DEMONSTRATE GOOD CAUSE: (1) If you look at my original complaint, Tony and Diego admitted that I do goo work in my retaliation claim. (Phelps said my work was not good) (2) Vincent Artis is still on probation even when he finished the extended probation, he asked Director Mario and his boss Jeff meat and they didn’t answer. (3) Looking at 1 and 2, itis saft to say all 4 people conspired against Vincent Artis, and that means these individuals had to keep the presser on me. (4) The EEOC brought up a discrimination claim and Northwell admitted to it. Assistant Director and Director Mario have gotten fired. (6) lam nota lawyer nor do! practice law. I did not Know | could ask for that type of Discovery until Defendants lawyer asked for that against me,

My arguments with case law: In McMahan v. New York Organ Donor Network Inc; No. 156669/12,2016 WL 1251204(NY Sup. CT Mar. 28, 2016)

Personal records must be disclosed, at least to the extent of requiring an in camera inspection by the court, ,jwhenever there is a reasonable possibility that these files contain relevant and material documenits..... Lets look at another case: Ladson v. Ulltra East Parking Corp, 878 F. Supp 25 (S.D.NLY. 1995) This was a real dirty case, and as ugly as it can get. But, it shows the importancy of seeing employees records especially when it comes to Retaliation and Discrimination cases, which my case falls under. The case states that :All must be shown is that the Discovery requested possibly might be relevant. Henderson v. National R.R Passenger Corp 113 F.R.D 502, 506, (No 111 1986) OR! Is reasonably calculated to lead to the Discovery of admissible evidence. Fed. R. Civ Proc 26({(b)({1) Rozier v. ford motors Co. 573 F2d 1332, 1342-43

In conclusion: | would like to have a hearing on this matter.

Sincerely Vincent Artis Pro-se 7:23-cv-09827-KMK 11/17/25 Lut farts

The Court will address this motion, as well as any disputes that the parties raise in their discovery dispute letters, which are to be filed by December 10, 2025, at the in-person status conference scheduled for December 22, 2025. Defendants may respond to this motion in any letter they file on December 10, 2025. The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to mail a copy of this memo endorsed order to the pro se Plaintiff. Dated: November 26, 2025 SO ORDERED.

ANDREW E. KRAUSE United States Magistrate Judge