Toro v. City of New York et al

Filing 43

ORDER granting in part and denying in part 41 Motion to Compel. As explained in the attached order, plaintiff is directed to provide defendants with a release for records relating to his employment with the City Marshals no later than September 9, 2013. Ordered by Magistrate Judge Roanne L. Mann on 9/3/2013. (Williams, Jennifer) C/M to plaintiff's home address and email, [e-mail].

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
---------------------------------------------------------------------x
EDWIN TORO,
Plaintiff,
-against-

ORDER
12-CV-4093 (RRM)

THE CITY OF NEW YORK, ADMINISTRATION
FOR CHILDREN’S SERVICES; MAYOR
MICHAEL BLOOMBERG, COMMISSIONER
JOHN MATTINGLY, COMMISSIONER,
RONALD E. RICHTER, P.O.’s JOHN DOE #1-50,
TEAMSTERS LOCAL 237, PRESIDENT
GREGORY FLOYD, EMPLOYEE’S JOHN DOE
#1-50, each individually and in their official capacity,
Defendants.
---------------------------------------------------------------------x
ROANNE L. MANN, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE:
On August 6, 2013, in response to a motion filed by defendants, this Court issued an
order compelling pro se plaintiff Edwin Toro (“plaintiff”) to produce certain documents related
to his employment history. See Minute Order (Aug. 6, 2013) (“8/6/13 Order”), Electronic
Case Filing Docket Entry (“DE”) #40. Plaintiff allegedly produced some, but not all, of the
responsive documents, and, therefore, on August 15, 2013, defendants filed a motion to
compel plaintiff to fully comply with the Court’s 8/6/13 Order. See Motion to Compel (Aug.
15, 2013) (“Def. Mot.”), DE #42. The Court directed plaintiff to respond to defendants’
motion by August 19, 2013, but plaintiff never did so. See Endorsed Order (Aug. 16, 2013),
DE #43.
In their motion, defendants assert that this Court directed plaintiff “to provide all
documentation regarding his employment since leaving [the Administration for Children’s

Services (“ACS”)], including a release for records relating to his employment with the City
Marshals.” Def. Mot. at 1 (emphasis added). This statement, however, is not an accurate
recounting of this Court’s 8/6/13 Order. Rather, the Court directed plaintiff to produce a
much narrower set of documents relating to his employment history. First, the Court directed
that plaintiff provide documents sufficient to reflect any income plaintiff earned since his
termination with ACS. See 8/6/13 Order at 1. Second, the Court ruled that defendants were
entitled to all documents related to plaintiff’s employment with the City Marshals (and, in
conjunction with this determination, directed plaintiff to provide defendants with the
appropriate records release form). See id. at 2. In doing so, the Court specifically rejected the
defendants’ broader request for all records related to plaintiff’s work history.
Therefore, to the extent plaintiff has not provided defendants “with all documents
relating to his employment since leaving ACS,” see Def. Mot. at 1, plaintiff is not in violation
of the 8/6/13 Order. However, because plaintiff has apparently failed to provide a release for
documents concerning his employment with the City Marshals, plaintiff has violated this aspect
of the Court’s 8/6/13 Order.1 Plaintiff is directed to provide defendants with the relevant
release no later than September 9, 2013.
This is not the first time that plaintiff has failed to meet his discovery obligations or has
been warned about the consequences of failing to comply with court orders. See Order (July

1

With respect to the documents sufficient to identify plaintiff’s post-termination income,
defendants state that plaintiff provided “some financial information, such as paystubs and a W2 form,” but notably do not contend that plaintiff continues to withhold relevant financial
information See Def. Mot. at 2. Therefore, this Court declines to find that plaintiff violated
that aspect of its 8/6/13 Order.
-2-

3, 2013) at 2, DE #36 (warning plaintiff that, if he did not provide overdue discovery
responses, he would be sanctioned); Order (May 6, 2013), DE #13 (warning plaintiff that he
was “expected to comply with all court orders and to cooperate with defense counsel in
conducting discovery” and that the failure to do so would “result in the imposition of
sanctions, including possibly dismissal of his claims”).
The Court will not tolerate any further delays in this case. If plaintiff fails to provide
the release ordered herein by the requisite deadline, the Court may impose and/or recommend
sanctions, including, but not limited to, dismissal of his complaint.
SO ORDERED.
Dated:

Brooklyn, New York
September 3, 2013

Roanne L. Mann

/s/
ROANNE L. MANN
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

-3-