Raymond et al v. The City of New York et al

Filing 351

ORDER denying without prejudice 348 Letter Motion for Discovery. Plaintiffs' letter-motion seeking to brief the Court on both the amendment and preclusion issues (ECF No. 348) is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Any outstanding discovery or sanctions issues shall be addressed following resolution of Plaintiffs' motion for leave to amend (ECF No. 346). The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to close ECF No. 348. (Signed by Magistrate Judge Sarah L Cave on 10/24/2022) (ate)

Case 1:15-cv-06885-LTS-SLC Document 351 Filed 10/24/22 Page 1 of 2

NWOKORO & SCOLA, ESQUIRES
TEL: [phone]

90 Broad Street, Suite 1023
NEW YORK, NY 10004
___________________________

914.302.4099
Plaintiffs' letter-motionFAX:
seeking
to brief the Court on
both the amendment and preclusion issues (ECF No.
348) is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Any outstanding
October 22,
2022
discovery
or sanctions
issues shall be addressed
following resolution of Plaintiffs' motion for leave to
amend (ECF No. 346).

Sent Via ECF
Honorable Sarah L. Cave
Daniel Patrick Moynihan
United States Courthouse
500 Pearl Street, Courtroom 18A
New York, New York 10007

The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to close ECF
No. 348.
SO ORDERED 10/24/22
Re:

Serrano et al. v. City of New York et al.
Docket No.: 1:15-CV-06885

Dear Judge Cave,
We represent the Plaintiffs’ in the above referenced matter. Plaintiffs write to the Court to
supplement our letter motion seeking leave to amend Plaintiff Serrano’s complaint from October
21, 2022 (DKT 346). Plaintiff mistakenly, until reading the Court’s Order dated October 21, 2022,
believed that the briefing schedule set forth by the Court was solely over the issue of amendment.
The Courts decision stated that Plaintiff was to brief the Court on both the amendment and
preclusion issues. As such Plaintiffs, apologetically write to the Court to supplement our letter to
include the preclusion issue.
If the Court declines to allow Plaintiff Serrano to amend his complaint or sanction the
Defendants, the Court at the very least should not allow the Defendants to benefit from their late
production which occurred nearly eighteen (18) months after the close of discovery. See Flannigan
v. Vulcan Power Grp., 642 Fed. Appx. 46 (2nd Cir. 2016) (“Testimony of employer's corporate
officer was inadmissible, at trial on employee's wage and retaliation claims against employer,
since employer failed to disclose officer as witness until eve of trial after ignoring discovery
request and no chance to depose”). Further the Defendants have offered no credible explanation
as to why these documents were not disclosed during the discovery period. Plaintiffs sought all
relevant documents related to Plaintiff Serrano, including his disciplinary history and employment
file. The Defendants claim they discovered this document now simply because they asked for it,
significantly calls into question whether or not Plaintiffs have received discovery that they have
previously requested, not only in Plaintiff Serrano’s case but also Plaintiff Gonzalez and
previously dismissed Plaintiffs Raymond and Baez. The Defendants cannot be rewarded by their
failure to comply with the rules of discovery. See Ritchie Risk-Linked Strategies Trading
(Ireland), Ltd. v. Coventry First LLC 280 F.R.D. 147 (S.D.N.Y. 2012). (Plaintiff barred from
admitting evidence not disclosed during discovery period absent good cause for the failure to
comply with discovery schedule.”)

Case 1:15-cv-06885-LTS-SLC Document 351 Filed 10/24/22 Page 2 of 2

I thank the Court for its time and consideration related to this matter.
Very truly yours,
/s/
John Scola
CC: Yuval Rubinstein, Esq. (ECF)