Edo v. Ryan et al

Filing 33

ORDER: The Court held a status conference in pro se plaintiff's civil rights case on March 11, 2025. Plaintiff appeared and attorney Mamoon Saleemi appeared on behalf of defendants. The Court excused plaintiffs nonappearance at the February 13, 2025 status conference and confirmed plaintiff's address is correct on the docket. For the reasons discussed on the record, defendants' motion to compel, ECF No. 29 , is granted. In Court, defendants' counsel gave plaintiff a hard copy of the interrogatories served on plaintiff in November. Plaintiff shall respond to the interrogatories by March 28, 2025. The Court told plaintiff to keep a copy of his responses. Plaintiff was explicitly warned that if he failed to respond to defendants' interrogatories by March 28, 2025, I shall recommend that this case should be dismissed for plaintiff's failure to comply with the Court's Order. Fed. R. Civ. P. 37; see also Valentine v. Museum of Modern Art, 29 F.3d 47, 49 (2d Cir. 1994) ("The severe sanction of dismissal with prejudice may be imposed even against a plaintiff who is proceeding pro se, so long as warning has been given that noncompliance can result in dismissal.").The Court also reset the discovery deadline. The parties shall complete all discovery by April 25, 2025. No further extension shall be granted. Any party seeking to file a dispositive motion shall file a pre-motion conference request by May 9, 2025 in accordance with Judge Chen's Individual Rules. See attached Order. Ordered by Magistrate Judge Lois Bloom on 3/11/2025. (FTR Log #2:08-2:38.) (NL)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
--------------------------------------------------------------------------X
ENEKAN EDO,
Plaintiff,
-against-

ORDER
24 CV 2187 (PKC)(LB)

OFFICER DANIEL RYAN and
JOHN DOE,
Defendants.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------X
BLOOM, United States Magistrate Judge:
The Court held a status conference in pro se plaintiff's civil rights case on March 11, 2025.
Plaintiff appeared and attorney Mamoon Saleemi appeared on behalf of defendants. The Court
excused plaintiff’s nonappearance at the February 13, 2025 status conference and confirmed
plaintiff’s address is correct on the docket.
For the reasons discussed on the record, defendants’ motion to compel, ECF No. 29, is
granted. In Court, defendants’ counsel gave plaintiff a hard copy of the interrogatories served on
plaintiff in November. Plaintiff shall respond to the interrogatories by March 28, 2025. The Court
told plaintiff to keep a copy of his responses. Plaintiff was explicitly warned that if he failed to
respond to defendants’ interrogatories by March 28, 2025, I shall recommend that this case should
be dismissed for plaintiff’s failure to comply with the Court’s Order. Fed. R. Civ. P. 37; see also
Valentine v. Museum of Modern Art, 29 F.3d 47, 49 (2d Cir. 1994) ("The severe sanction of
dismissal with prejudice may be imposed even against a plaintiff who is proceeding pro se, so long
as warning has been given that noncompliance can result in dismissal.").

The Court also reset the discovery deadline. The parties shall complete all discovery by
April 25, 2025. 1 No further extension shall be granted. Any party seeking to file a dispositive
motion shall file a pre-motion conference request by May 9, 2025 in accordance with Judge Chen's
Individual Rules.
SO ORDERED.
/S/
LOIS BLOOM
United States Magistrate Judge
Dated: March 11, 2025
Brooklyn, New York

1
Plaintiff stated that he was unable to view the body worn videos produced by defendants. As plaintiff and
defendants’ counsel confirmed that they have successfully exchanged emails, defendants’ counsel shall provide
another copy of the body worn videos by March 14, 2025 and plaintiff shall cooperate with defendants’ counsel to
schedule his deposition. The Court explained that a deposition is a seven-hour question and answer session under
oath with a Court reporter. Fed. R. Civ. P. 30.