Hanley v. Zucker et al
Filing
31
MEMORANDUM OPINION & ORDER: Before the Court is the question of whether discovery should be stayed pending the resolution of defendants' motions to dismiss. The issue was raised in the state defendant's brief in support of its motion to dis miss and discussed by the parties at the initial pretrial conference on October 28, 2015. Accordingly, all discovery in this action is STAYED until the Court issues further instructions after it reviews the full briefing on the motions to dismiss. (As further set forth in this Order.) (Signed by Judge Katherine B. Forrest on 11/12/2015) (kko)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
------------------------------------------------------------------ X
:
SYLVIA HANLEY, by her attorney in fact,
:
CHARLES STERNBACH, and ALAN
:
BLUMKIN, on behalf of themselves and all
:
others similarly situated,
:
:
Plaintiff,
:
:
-v:
:
HOWARD A. ZUCKER, M.D., J.D., in his
:
official capacity as Commissioner, New York
:
State Department of Health, and STEVEN
:
BANKS, in his official capacity as
:
Commissioner, New York City Human
:
Resources Administration,
:
:
Defendants.
:
X
------------------------------------------------------------------
USDC SDNY
DOCUMENT
ELECTRONICALLY FILED
DOC #: _________________
DATE FILED: November 12, 2015
15-cv-5958 (KBF)
MEMORANDUM
OPINION & ORDER
KATHERINE B. FORREST, District Judge:
Before the Court is the question of whether discovery should be stayed
pending the resolution of defendants’ motions to dismiss. The issue was raised in
the state defendant’s brief in support of its motion to dismiss and discussed by the
parties at the initial pretrial conference on October 28, 2015. At that conference,
the Court asked plaintiffs to “come up with a narrow set of discovery” on initial
issues such as “statistics of denials” of Medicaid applications at specific locations.
(Tr. at 22:1-3; 13:22-25; 14:4-6.)1 Instead, plaintiffs have submitted what appears to
“Tr.” citations refer to the page and line numbers of the transcript of the initial pretrial conference
on October 28, 2015.
1
be a broad set of discovery requests aimed at litigating the full scope of the case.
For example, plaintiffs requested, “For each and every Medicaid application
requesting personal care services based on disability from July 30, 2012 through
August 19, 2015, any and all documents that reflect the number of days it took
Defendant to provide notice to the applicant about whether the applicant met the
financial and categorical requirements for Medicaid funded personal care services.”
(Pl.’s Nov. 2, 2015 Ltr. Ex. A. (ECF No. 24), at 5, ¶ 7.)2 Plaintiffs also seek, for
example, “Any documents concerning amount of time it takes for Defendant to
process applications for Medicaid funded personal care services from July 30, 2012
through the present.” (Id. at 6, ¶ 13.) Plaintiffs also requested admissions on
statistics as to the number of applicants for Medicaid funded personal care services
over a three-year period. (Id. at 9-11.)
Plaintiff’s proposed discovery is far broader than the scope that was discussed
at the conference. The Court was amenable to balancing defendants’ request for a
stay against a reasonably narrow set of initial requests. I stated that over and over
again. These requests and my direction are ships passing in the night. By
overreaching with such broad requests, plaintiffs have reinforced, rather than
undercut, defendant’s arguments in favor of staying discovery. The Court also will
not engage in a back-and-forth with the plaintiff to negotiate the scope of a
Because plaintiff’s proposed discovery request to defendant Zucker is essentially equivalent to the
proposed request to defendant Banks, the Court cites only the page and paragraph numbers for the
Banks request.
2
2
narrower set of discovery, since it has already made clear at the initial conference
that it would not allow plaintiffs to “seek the world” in its initial proposed discovery.
(Tr. at 22:8-10.)
Accordingly, all discovery in this action is STAYED until the Court issues
further instructions after it reviews the full briefing on the motions to dismiss.
SO ORDERED.
Dated:
New York, New York
November 12, 2015
______________________________________
KATHERINE B. FORREST
United States District Judge
3
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?