Vincent Artis v. Phelps Memorial Hospital Association, et al.

S.D. New York

Vincent Artis v. Phelps Memorial Hospital Association, et al.

District Court, S.D. New York·Decided January 7, 2026·No. 7:23-cv-09827·Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

VINCENT ARTIS MOTION FOR STAY Plaintiff No: 7:23-cv-09827-KMK -against- PHELPS MEMORIAL HOSPITAL ASSOCIATION, et, al., Defendants

I (Vincent Artis) would like to have a Stay pending my appeals for the following reasons;

The appeal! court wil! only allow an appeal where the decision of the lower court was: 1. Wrong, or 2. Unjust because of serious procedural or other irregularity in the proceedings in the lower court. (lets look at that quote for a minute) that is a very powerful quote, so in order to prove my case for a Stay my argument have to match this quote. (1) | said that Defendants lawyer should not have been granted the rights to see my mental and physical records; | have said somethings on my appeal, but | left out the most important piece of evidence; | have a case 25-cv-09045 in Judge Seibel court and | sent in my physical and mental permanent injury report. {Please see attached exhibit A} and this complaint lawsuit was filed before this matter came up in your court. The reason this is EXTREMELY important is because of the rules of "res judicata and collateral estoppa!" Which means | cannot bring up the same things in different law suits | do not have to recite cases because this is the rules and facts. My other case 25-cv-09045 talks about | got hurt on the job and that was after | put my original complaint in (7:23-cv-09827-KMK) and if you Jook at it my original complaint there is nothing saying | ask for Physical damages so Judge Krause should have never granted that. (The court of appeals will only allow an appeal when the decision of the lower court was: 1. Wrong, 2. Unjust because of serious procedural or other irregularity in the proceedings in the lower court} Now lets look at Mental; | have admitted to not seeking mental help until after | got hurt on the job (11/2-3/22) my complaint was in way before that and | was still working when | put my original complaint in. Judge Krause should have never granted access to all my mental records because that will be - covered in another case that is still pending and the rules of "res judicata and collateral estoppal" states | cannot bring up the same issues in another law suit. (The appeal court will only allow an appeal when the decision of the lower court was: 1. Wrong, or 2. Unjust because of serious procedural or other irregularity in the proceedings in the lower court. My

mental and Physical permanent injury(s) report shows these matters will be addressed in another complaint (25-09045) Also please note that Judge Seibel have denied my complaint, but she said | should file in State court. Which shows my complaint have merit, But | am appealing her decision with the court of appeals, and as long as | am appealing her decision it means my claims and complaint is still alive in the court system. (The law) (2) Federal Rule Of Civil Procedure (FRCP) have this thing called the “IN CONTROVERSY REQIREMENT” The physical condition must be a genuine issue in the case What makes this rule so important is because | never said or listed a physical injury in my complaint, and the ONLY way Defendants lawyer have any merit to there claim if | would have Amend my complaint. (3) Judge Krause ruled that if anybody talk to me or text me about Phelps hospital, | have to report it to the defendants lawyers. And he made that decision after defendants lawyer only argument was "I complained" On 12/22/25 in court t asked to see defendants personal cell phone records and Judge Krause said "no that is personal" see the problem with that is supervisor Diego is all over my complaint so at least there is somewhat of a probable cause, by judge Krause saying | have to report anything about Phelps hospital to defendants lawyers on my personal phone and not do the same with defendants phone then Bias and prejudice will automatically be assumed. {1 am appealing that decision, see attached to this motion) ALSO, Phelps hospital have a portal that all employees are hooked up to so they can talk to each other, the only rights Phelps have on this matter is to look at all the messages in that portal. (Please see exhibit D attached) my arguments with case law: In McMahan v. New York Organ Donor Network Inc; No. 156669/12,2016WL 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, whenever there is a reasonable possibility that these files contain relevant and material documents..... (Lets look at another case) Ladson v. Ulitra 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! 's reasonably calculated to lead to the Discovery of admissible evidence. Fed. R. Civ Pro 26(b)(1) Rozier v. ford motors Co. 573 F2d 1332, 1342-43 this is extremely important because supervisor Diego is all aver my complaint and Tony is too. (4)In Federal Civil Courts in NY (and generally) judges can err by admitting irrelevant, overly broad, or prejudicial discovery (Discovery not relevant to the case), but it’s often challenged via motions to compel/limit discovery or appeals, with courts generally favoring relevance under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (FRCP) 26(b)(1) requiring proportionality), through sometimes judges admit wide-ranging info if potentially relevant, leading to appeals for abuse of discretion, like in cases where scope is abused or sanctions are improper, requiring parties to show the judge clearly exceeded bounds, as seen in general discovery disputes where courts struggle to balance access vs. burden. Types of Discovery Errors (Not Specific Cases, but Patterns) 1. Overly Broad Requests: Allowing discovery into a party's entire life/business when only a narrow aspect is relevant to the case.

2. Irrelevant Information: Admitting data/documents with no logical connection to the claims or defenses. 3. Undue Burden/Proportionality Issues: Forcing production of massive data when a small sample would suffice (violating FRCP 26(b)(1) 4. Confidentiality Breaches: Allowing disclosure of trade secrets or private info without proper protection | am saying Judge Krause is guilty in all these offenses. And the only way | can obtain justice from these errors 1. Motions for Protective orders (FRCP 26@©: Parties ask the judge to limit or deny discovery if it is irrelevant, harassing, or unduly burdensome. 2. Appeals (Abuse of Discretion): If a judge makes a clear, harmful discovery ruling (e.g., forcing irrelevant data), it can be grounds for appeal, though appellate courts often defer to trial judges 3. (Vincent Artis) is not a lawyer nor do | practice law, if its my right to add 1 and 2 to this motion then please do. (5) The court have to take in account that | filed a complaint on judge Krause. (Please see attached)

IN CONCLUSION: I like to first apologize to the court on a couple of my other motions, | talked angry and hurt which is not cool at all. | will be better for now on. In conclusion: | would like the judge to grant all my request and grant me a Stay or have a hearing on all these matters. Defendants are to respond to this application by 1/9/26. Sincerely The Clerk is respectfully directed to Vineerit Ariis\Rro-sa mail this document to Plaintiff. 23-cv-09827-KMK SoOrdered Se >

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

VINCENT ARTIS MOTION FOR STAY Plaintiff No: 7:23-cv-09827-KMK -against- PHELPS MEMORIAL HOSPITAL ASSOCIATION, et, al., Defendants

I (Vincent Artis) would like to have a Stay pending my appeals for the following reasons;

The appeal! court wil! only allow an appeal where the decision of the lower court was: 1. Wrong, or 2. Unjust because of serious procedural or other irregularity in the proceedings in the lower court. (lets look at that quote for a minute) that is a very powerful quote, so in order to prove my case for a Stay my argument have to match this quote. (1) | said that Defendants lawyer should not have been granted the rights to see my mental and physical records; | have said somethings on my appeal, but | left out the most important piece of evidence; | have a case 25-cv-09045 in Judge Seibel court and | sent in my physical and mental permanent injury report. {Please see attached exhibit A} and this complaint lawsuit was filed before this matter came up in your court. The reason this is EXTREMELY important is because of the rules of "res judicata and collateral estoppa!" Which means | cannot bring up the same things in different law suits | do not have to recite cases because this is the rules and facts. My other case 25-cv-09045 talks about | got hurt on the job and that was after | put my original complaint in (7:23-cv-09827-KMK) and if you Jook at it my original complaint there is nothing saying | ask for Physical damages so Judge Krause should have never granted that. (The court of appeals will only allow an appeal when the decision of the lower court was: 1. Wrong, 2. Unjust because of serious procedural or other irregularity in the proceedings in the lower court} Now lets look at Mental; | have admitted to not seeking mental help until after | got hurt on the job (11/2-3/22) my complaint was in way before that and | was still working when | put my original complaint in. Judge Krause should have never granted access to all my mental records because that will be - covered in another case that is still pending and the rules of "res judicata and collateral estoppal" states | cannot bring up the same issues in another law suit. (The appeal court will only allow an appeal when the decision of the lower court was: 1. Wrong, or 2. Unjust because of serious procedural or other irregularity in the proceedings in the lower court. My

mental and Physical permanent injury(s) report shows these matters will be addressed in another complaint (25-09045) Also please note that Judge Seibel have denied my complaint, but she said | should file in State court. Which shows my complaint have merit, But | am appealing her decision with the court of appeals, and as long as | am appealing her decision it means my claims and complaint is still alive in the court system. (The law) (2) Federal Rule Of Civil Procedure (FRCP) have this thing called the “IN CONTROVERSY REQIREMENT” The physical condition must be a genuine issue in the case What makes this rule so important is because | never said or listed a physical injury in my complaint, and the ONLY way Defendants lawyer have any merit to there claim if | would have Amend my complaint. (3) Judge Krause ruled that if anybody talk to me or text me about Phelps hospital, | have to report it to the defendants lawyers. And he made that decision after defendants lawyer only argument was "I complained" On 12/22/25 in court t asked to see defendants personal cell phone records and Judge Krause said "no that is personal" see the problem with that is supervisor Diego is all over my complaint so at least there is somewhat of a probable cause, by judge Krause saying | have to report anything about Phelps hospital to defendants lawyers on my personal phone and not do the same with defendants phone then Bias and prejudice will automatically be assumed. {1 am appealing that decision, see attached to this motion) ALSO, Phelps hospital have a portal that all employees are hooked up to so they can talk to each other, the only rights Phelps have on this matter is to look at all the messages in that portal. (Please see exhibit D attached) my arguments with case law: In McMahan v. New York Organ Donor Network Inc; No. 156669/12,2016WL 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, whenever there is a reasonable possibility that these files contain relevant and material documents..... (Lets look at another case) Ladson v. Ulitra 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! 's reasonably calculated to lead to the Discovery of admissible evidence. Fed. R. Civ Pro 26(b)(1) Rozier v. ford motors Co. 573 F2d 1332, 1342-43 this is extremely important because supervisor Diego is all aver my complaint and Tony is too. (4)In Federal Civil Courts in NY (and generally) judges can err by admitting irrelevant, overly broad, or prejudicial discovery (Discovery not relevant to the case), but it’s often challenged via motions to compel/limit discovery or appeals, with courts generally favoring relevance under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (FRCP) 26(b)(1) requiring proportionality), through sometimes judges admit wide-ranging info if potentially relevant, leading to appeals for abuse of discretion, like in cases where scope is abused or sanctions are improper, requiring parties to show the judge clearly exceeded bounds, as seen in general discovery disputes where courts struggle to balance access vs. burden. Types of Discovery Errors (Not Specific Cases, but Patterns) 1. Overly Broad Requests: Allowing discovery into a party's entire life/business when only a narrow aspect is relevant to the case.

2. Irrelevant Information: Admitting data/documents with no logical connection to the claims or defenses. 3. Undue Burden/Proportionality Issues: Forcing production of massive data when a small sample would suffice (violating FRCP 26(b)(1) 4. Confidentiality Breaches: Allowing disclosure of trade secrets or private info without proper protection | am saying Judge Krause is guilty in all these offenses. And the only way | can obtain justice from these errors 1. Motions for Protective orders (FRCP 26@©: Parties ask the judge to limit or deny discovery if it is irrelevant, harassing, or unduly burdensome. 2. Appeals (Abuse of Discretion): If a judge makes a clear, harmful discovery ruling (e.g., forcing irrelevant data), it can be grounds for appeal, though appellate courts often defer to trial judges 3. (Vincent Artis) is not a lawyer nor do | practice law, if its my right to add 1 and 2 to this motion then please do. (5) The court have to take in account that | filed a complaint on judge Krause. (Please see attached)

IN CONCLUSION: I like to first apologize to the court on a couple of my other motions, | talked angry and hurt which is not cool at all. | will be better for now on. In conclusion: | would like the judge to grant all my request and grant me a Stay or have a hearing on all these matters. Defendants are to respond to this application by 1/9/26. Sincerely The Clerk is respectfully directed to Vineerit Ariis\Rro-sa mail this document to Plaintiff. 23-cv-09827-KMK SoOrdered Se > Fe), er!” ee Xx °°

| Board _ of MMl/Permanent Partial Impairment Use thls form: 4. When rendering en opinion on MMI andlor permanent partal impairment; or 2. In response fo’a request by the Workers’ Comperiseion Bod! to i a pi on Mi andr eet pal response lp’ request by □ Please answer ail questions completely, attaching extra pages ff necessary, and submit promplly to the Board, the ingurande canler and to the Gahienete meee emer een reatment, prevent the timely payment of wage loss benefits to the patient, create th testimony, and. ‘your Board You maxy also lout this form oni et WaeWWeb IY GOW, oo ee Examination: _ 5) lax ) es ‘wes case# 324509 cain adi iain Mimbor a a een 2 . a ae 1, Nema: rHs Vincent zZDeleotBith: S(Zlallpps.es tat Psst MI

Wunberand Gist "Sila Zp Code phone s.davatinpnyiinnss: {(\2[AQ 7.Palients Accounts B. Doctor's Information turner tat 1083-4) 8, WCB Rating Code: "Va Federal Tato # 422782830“: The Tax iDifisthe (check one)-L_Isen [len 5. Office address: 310 EAST SHORE RD. SUITE100__- GREATNECK _ NY. 41023 Number end Sheet ey Side Zp Gado 6, Group or Pratlice Name: BEHAVIORAL MEDICINE ASSOCIATES. □□□ ieee tee a □□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□ Officephones 9, Biling phone □□ 40. Treating Providers NPI® C. Billing information’

3,\nsurance carrier's address: i ee . 4, Diagnoals or nature of disease or Injury: Entér (CD10 Code: IcD10 Descriptor; (1) 7 to ite +.

Billing (GPT) Codes — Change (pode

oa el (5-22) Page 1 C=4.3 5-22

ae Ae Ww 4 t ake th a Line Sas AL Yen Oe, □□ . at last First Mt D. Maximum Medical Improvement me | . 1. Has the palient reached Maximum Medical Improvement? LA) fes|_|No if yes, provide the date palientreachedMMt

PLEASE SEE ATTACHED

E. Permanent Partial Impairment a □□ ls there permanent parti Impairment? lyea[_ [No 2, List the body parts and conditions you tresited the patient for related to the date of injury listed In Section A, Question’ 6,

Complete Permanent Partial Disabiity, Allachmett A and/or Attachment B, as indicated based on the pallent’s condlilon. Aachmant A and/or AEE SAE een □□□ Oo nee Crem Cees morn pemshent parila! impalrment where schedule eward (schedule loss of use) is appropriate, complate Attachment A, except for serious faclal disfigurement, vision, or liearing loss. 7s © Qcciipatiorial Loss of Hearing - C-72,1 should be utilized, and/or Traumatic Hearing Loss - C4.3 with an alteched narrative, VisionLoss: * Attending Ophthalmologists Report (Fon C-5), or « C4,3 with an attached narrative. Serious Factal Distigurament award (classification), complete AltachmentB.

Sign below and submit to the Board only the pages of the form that apply to this report. This fort is signad under penalty of perjury. Board Authorized Health Gare Provider signature: \alhew Warnes f,Sy Z7: PSYCHOLOGY 5120i25

“a ee (5-22) Page 2 C-4.3 5-22

~ ie Workers Doctor's Report eee of MMl/Permanent Partial Impairment C-4.. Comparator anti tawerScstoon or Wil aciorpecenet peek IDpSenda —— Pl wer all questions cémpletely, attaching extra pages if necessary, and submit prompily to the Board, the hi canrier and-to th ps0 man hy ha a1 cp ie Een pa ct eet Be Saat pepe of oan bs benefits to the patient, creale.the necessity for tesfimorty, and jeopardize your Board authorization. You may also Hout tis form online at wewswch.ny.gov, ~ is eel Date of Examination: fa. z= wes cane hes Hos Claim Admin Claim Number: Ie 9920190001, A. Pationt’s Information 4,Name: A Cit Vrcouy- 2DaootSrinD (26/rgz2,8sn-_ Last . First MI 4, Aless ochineedfonipindoss report ¢-7 Wachinatah AVe Sloatcbura NY 169774 5, Home phone # QU -3.2% 255 IAB. Dato of injuryfness: _. _____. 7, Palientts Account it: -_ B. Doctor's Information 1.Yourname: Man anil . __ 2WeB Authorization 3. WCB Raling Coder, ____ 4, Fedesel Tex ID 2227624149 The TexlD#ts □□ (ekoney Ison [AEN 5. Office addess: 36H Bot Mion Ba cdowa NY je I6f Number and Street City State Zp Code 6. Biting Group or PraciceName:, The Phystaal . Medici ne R ehaBbiliction. Bling address: 245 NY 304 Ah Ba YAONA MY lot Number and Steet chy Biale Zip Coda: 8. Oftce phone tr &15- 624. 2.1572 9, Bing phone ik | 10. Treaiing Prviiers 934505255 C. Billing Information 4. Employer's insurance carrier: Rw ode, Pice -NFE 2. insurer ID; W_+_ Insurenon canta atthoassf 2. Brox Ji 132 Lenin g tesla Ky 4 eble moerdnd Stee Ciy+ ‘Blate BpCoda 4, Diagnosis or nature of disease or injury: _ Enter ICD40- Code: ICD10 Descriptor:

@) . : §, Billing (CPT) Code: 8. Charge (3): | 7..Zip Code: G-4.3 (6-22) Page 1 HAA 5-22 (In

Patient Namec_ft Vincent, Date of infuryiidnese: IL 2.[9022. Last Fist 7 Mt D. Maximum Medical Improvement 2 th pationt reached Maximum Medical improvernent,. |Yes[_]hNo tyes, provide the dale pent reached MAME 3 PF a _ j

E. Permanent Partial Impairment” | ad 1. there permanent para! impairment? 7{¥es|_INo 2. List the bouly parts and conditions your treated the patient for related to the date of injury listed in Saction A, Question 8.

Complete Permanent Partial Disablity, Attachment A and/or Allachment B, 2s insiicated hased.on the patient's condilion, Attachment A andlor. □□□ SAAD a ey IS en NE □□□ NE nS CU m Fora permanent partial impainnent where schedule award (schedule loss of use) Is epptoprialé, complete Atfachment A, except for Setlous facial disfigurement, Vision, cr hearing toss.

© Occiipational Loss of Hearing - (G-72:1 should be utilized), and/or Vision Togs: . » Attending Ophthalmalogist’s Repart (Farm C-5), or © C-4.3 with an allanhed nariative. Serious Facial Disfigurement . © ‘C-4.3 with an alteched narralive, - _m Fora norschedule award (classification), complete Altachment B,

Sign below and submit the Board only the pages ofthe form that epply {0 this report. This formds elgned under penalty of perjury, oe Board Authorized’ Health Care-Provider signature: 7 Nath anizt moutag YT ft feral Vy lds Nama signature v : ORE cla yt Ddte

C-4.3 (5-22) Page? , ,

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

V2 AC&\ (List the full name(s) of the plaintiff(s)/petitioner(s).) a 5 CV C2 TOE X ) -against Judge Se beLUSOS NOTICE OF APPEAL

oop ka \. 4>~\ bu} (List th full name(s) of theldefendant(s)/respondent(s).}

Notice is hereby given that the following parties:

(Iist the names of all parties who are filing an appeal) in the above-named case oe United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit from the CO judgment order enteredon: 4) i2 | z S$ . (date that Judgment or order was entered on docket} that: \ - as an te ‘OA gat 1. Sof Cecovs deration) on 12 lee =e hurr gO tue Soh which □□□□ (If the appeal Is from an order, provide a briét description above of the decision in, the order to w Qvrm conay yely ir oe nh cc ee

Dated Signature VA Drea Name (Last, First, MI) onsite avenue Sloatsbw. wy 1077! Address City State Zip Code (446)323-2570 Btook\ Ay □□□ Telephone Number E-mail Address (ff available)

“Each party filing the appeal must date and sign the Notice of Appeal and provide his or her mailing address and telephone number, EXCEPT that a signer of a pro se notice of appeal may sign for his or her spouse and minor children if they are parties to the case. Fed. R. App. P. 3(c)(2). Attach additional sheets of paper as necessary. Rev. £2/23/13

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS | FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse 40 Foley Square, New York NY 10007 212.857.8585 DEBRA ANN LIVINGSTON CATHERINE O°HAGAN WOLFE CHIEF JUDGE CLERK OF COURT

December 22,2025

‘Vincent Artis 27 Washington Avenue Sloatsburg, NY 10974

Re: Judicial Conduct Complaint, 02-25-90128-jm □

Dear Vincent Artis:

We hereby acknowledge receipt of your judicial complaint received and filed as of the date received, December 4, 2025. The complaint has been filed under the above-referenced docket number and will be processed pursuant to the Judicial Conduct and Disability Act of 1980, 28 U.S.C. § 351-364 (2006), and the Rules for Judicial-Conduct and Judicial-Disability Proceedings. You will be notified by letter once a decision has been filed.

. Very truly yours, Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk of Court

——s CCC Deputy Clerk

wen \ @] 9)" (a0le cnn a Bod een eed? loyt~e5 em am laleley.< Ee le □□□□

= Ao ~W.S □ tat=s =a |g po aes

Other Emails 251 cS Romero, Rebecca L, Apa...

Older

Rodriguez-Nunez, Ro... 7/28/23 “4” REMINDER: Cousins Maine... _— 2 Sincerely, Nellie D. Jones, Executive Assistant, Patien

— ix DManien Dadlall ae — od

~ Please sign in to your Office Sian 365 account. _ a!

es —Q Mail Search Calendar

RE ee Sk Tage a eae es as Lares ES eee aioe ‘

Jag ye ca re a □□□ on ee Or

Be ee Sry!

itary ‘e 1 tg ] Pa a Se □□□

tape =. oe?

4} Ri 7% 44

□ | paweaeoe | □

| os es ae ah epee 22) i eee

dae Boe age a eee ee Pia Le Nae

aie □□ reba Sues, ma be ‘af ee atone tee

ee Py att ices may MG, ee Rf: BUSA a het a

eg ee “a fa Ni Ne eh ee Get ee Pe Spee pee

ee ee ae scien Ben

a ee Reet sate ee ges ee Pre acne Semen: ee Borate tae a os

on erat ee Ge ea

a, ae A ga ye ee gon ene cae □□□ saga ee a tai Lee ae ete □□□ pene aie. ae pat SU Nan eT)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK a eee VINCENT ARTIS APPEAL Plaintiff No:7:23-cv-09827-KMK -against- PHELPS MEMORIAL HOSPITAL ASSOCIATION, et, al., Defendants ey

On 12/22/25 judge Krause ruled that ! cannot have the personal phone records of employees listed in my complaint, | am appealing that Decision for these reasons: (1) [have merit to my claim because defendants are all over my complaint. (2) Judge Krause granted Defendants lawyer partial access to my personal phone when the defendants lawyer only argument in court was “I (Vincent Artis) complained” (3) The court of appeals will only allow an appeal when the lower court was 1. Wrong, 2. Unjust because of serious procedural or other irregularity in the proceedings in the lower court was: 1. Wrong. 2. Unjust because of serious procedural or other irregularity in the proceedings in the lower court. (4)In Federal Civil Courts in NY (and generally) judges can err by admitting irrelevant, overly broad, or prejudicial discovery (Discovery not relevant to the case), but it’s often challenged via motions to compel/limit discovery or appeals, with courts generally favoring relevance under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (FRCP) 26(b)}({1) requiring proportionality), through sometimes judges admit wide-ranging info if potentially relevant, leading to appeals for abuse of discretion, like in cases where scope is abused or sanctions are improper, requiring parties to show the judge clearly exceeded bounds, as-seen in general discovery disputes where-courts struggle to □□□□□□□ — balance access vs. burden. Types of Discovery Errors (Not Specific Cases, but Patterns) 1. Overly Broad Requests: Allowing discovery into a party’s entire life/husiness when only a narrow aspect is relevant to the case. 2. Irrelevant Information: Admitting data/documents with no logical connection to the claims or defenses. 3. Undue Burden/Proportionality Issues: Forcing production of massive data when a small sample would suffice (violating FRCP 26(b}(1)

4. Confidentiality Breaches: Allowing disclosure of trade secrets or. private info without proper protection | am saying Judge Krause is guilty in all these offenses. And the only way | can obtain justice from these errors 1. Motions for Protective orders (FRCP 26©: Parties ask the judge to limit or deny discovery if it is irrelevant, harassing, or unduly burdensome. 2. Appeals (Abuse of Discretion): If a judge makes a clear, harmful discovery ruling (e.g., forcing irrelevant data), it can be grounds for appeal, though appellate courts often defer to trial judges. (5) | have a complaint in the court of appeals on judge Krause. (Please see attached)

IN CONCLUSION: | would like my appeal to be granted or, | would like a hearing on this matter.

Sincerely Vincent Artis Pro-se 23-cv-09827-KMK 12/29/2025

Vincent Artis v. Phelps Memorial Hospital Association, et al., (S.D.N.Y. 2026).

Pincite

Vincent Artis v. Phelps Memorial Hospital Association, et al. (Vincent Artis v. Phelps Memorial Hospital Association, et al.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related