Lastra v. City Of New York et al

Filing 210

ORDER: The Court received the attached email and documents from the plaintiff. The schedule remains the same. The plaintiff may file objections by July 21, 2020 and the defendants may respond by July 24, 2020. (Signed by Judge John G. Koeltl on 7/17/2020) (jwh)

Case 1:16-cv-03088-JGK-RWL Document 210 Filed 07/17/20 Page 1 of 10

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
────────────────────────────────────
JAMES LASTRA,
Plaintiff,

16-cv-3088 (JGK)

- against –

ORDER

CITY OF NEW YORK, ET AL.,
Defendants.
────────────────────────────────────
JOHN G. KOELTL, District Judge:

The Court received the attached email and documents from
the plaintiff. The schedule remains the same. The plaintiff may
file objections by July 21, 2020 and the defendants may respond
by July 24, 2020.
SO ORDERED.
Dated:

New York, New York
July 17, 2020

/s/ John G. Koeltl
John G. Koeltl
United States District Judge

Case 1:16-cv-03088-JGK-RWL Document 210 Filed 07/17/20 Page 2 of 10
Koeltl NYSD Chambers
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Attachments:

Jamie L. <[e-mail]>
Friday, July 17, 2020 1:25 PM
Pellegrino, Nicolette (Law); Koeltl NYSD Chambers
Re: letter regarding Defendants counsel's July 15th letter - This is not my appeal
Defendants' 07-15-2020 Opp. (Lastra James) - Dkt. No. 208.pdf; Edwards v City of New YorkTwo.pdf

Dear Judge Koeltl,  
      I am writing briefly for the purposes of providing some clarification regarding the erroneous iteration 
contained in part II of Ms. Pellegrino's letter reply to my letter request for an extension of time‐‐ my letter 
application was solely for an extension and not, as she is trying to treat it, as an argument which needs to be 
supported with facts in an appeal‐ facts I contend she deliberately omitted at the conference. Notwithstanding 
that,  Ms. Pellegrino's statement concerning compliance with the 160.50 form is incorrect and distorts the 
facts by her omitting information in her custody at the conference ‐ specifically the list she refers to 
concerning local rule 83.10.  As stated in my pdf letter,   my previous attorneys Mr. Korenbaum and Mr. 
Schotter complied with the 160.50 and Mr. Korenbaum esq. already provided a list pursuant to 
83.10.  Yet,  Ms. Pellegrino claims she can't recall seeing the list document,  but it is indeed in the document 
production Mr. Korenbaum submitted to the attorneys for defendants in City's law offices in 2017.  The City's 
attorneys,  never objected nor submitted a deficiency letter in over two years(almost three years).         
This parallels the Edwards v City of New York case SDNY 2018 SDNY WL 1240305 cited in plaintiff's letter and 
at the teleconference.  Ms. Pellegrino seeks to convolute the issue by misinterpreting that case and omitting 
information to the Court of the fact the city's law offices were already in receipt of that list.  See , Edwards v 
City of New York, 2018 SDNY WL 1240305 at *2    The Court states at * 2 : 
" Edwards contends that the defendants 'waived the particular objection that they now belatedly raise in this 
instant letter,' because ....[t]he Defendants admit that they did not serve Plaintiff with a deficiency letter 
until  October 5th, 2017....the Defendants then waited an additional four months to raise this issue again.  Now 
, nearly five months after plaintiff served his discovery responses and two months after Plaintiff's deposition 
the defendants seek sealed documents which have no bearing on this litigation."  
Ms. Pellegrino omitted the relevant information concerning the list that was and is already in the city's law 
offices custody (since 2017) at the teleconference by stating at the conference that she "couldn't remember, 
" when asked.   
Defense counsel Ms. Pellegrino misrepresented the facts because if she had stated the facts concerning the 
list during the conference, it would have undermined her almost 3‐year late failure to submit a deficiency 
letter.  As is paralleled in the Edwards v City of New York  2018 SDNY  WL 1240305 case.        
Plaintiff respectfully asserts she should not get that relief by omitting facts concerning the list that was already 
produced and in the city law offices possession for almost 3 years.   She omitted that information to the Court 
in order to get a favorable decision. And she should be compelled to produce that list that was provided in 
discovery production in 2017.  And even now she is continuing to omit this crucial information to this Court 
regarding the list produced by Mr. Korenbaum.  

1

Case 1:16-cv-03088-JGK-RWL Document 210 Filed 07/17/20 Page 3 of 10
Had she been forthright by telling the judge that she actually had the list that Plaintiff's attorney 
Mr.  Korenabum gave in discovery production way back in 2017 she would probably would have been denied 
her request. But she withheld information by claiming   "she can't remember. " If she couldn't remember she 
should have gone back to the file to refresh her memory.  By withholding that information to the Court under 
the pretext of not remembering she is impeding important facts being brought to the Courts attention to 
render a fair determination parallel to the Edwards v City of New York case .  And Plaintiff respectfully 
suggests she should now produce that list since on a previous recent phone call I had with her she states that 
she reviewed the file and still "can't remember" if she has it and that the details arent important.  

In the Edwards case the defense counsel at *1 even claimed they did not get a complete list from Edwards ‐ 
And notwithstanding that the Court denied their request because it was late, not relevant, and not 
proportional to the needs of the case. In Edwards' case, Edward's had a rap sheet.  But in my case, Plaintiff, 
James Lastra, does not have a rap sheet.  

It is quite upsetting because plaintiff knows for a fact that they have the list and the 160.50 form ‐ all produced 
in 2017. 

Defense counsel is even distorting the adjournment ‐ the adjournments were mainly a direct result of the 
pandemic ‐ where everything shut down.   

Lastly this letter is not my appeal which I will submit on July 21st.  This letter is only to correct what I assert are 
her incorrect iterations in her reply letter to the Court which she submitted on July 15, 2020 attached herein .  

Respectfully submitted  

James Lastra  

PS I only became aware of Honor's current order on Thursday July 16th 
From: Pellegrino, Nicolette (Law) <[e-mail]> 
Sent: Wednesday, July 15, 2020 1:41 PM 
To: Jamie L. <[e-mail]> 
Subject: Courtesy Copy of the Defendants' July 15, 2020 Letter  

Good Afternoon Mr. Lastra,

Attached please find a courtesy copy of the Defendants' July 15, 2020 Letter in Opposition (Dkt. No. 208).
Best,
Nicolette Pellegrino
Assistant Corporation Counsel
Special Federal Litigation Division
New York City Law Department
100 Church Street
New York, NY 10007
212.356.2338
[e-mail]

2

Case 1:16-cv-03088-JGK-RWL Document 210 Filed 07/17/20 Page 4 of 10

Edwards v. City of New York, Not Reported in Fed. Supp. (2018)

2018 WL 1240305
Only the Westlaw citation is currently available.
United States District Court, S.D. New York.
Ramel EDWARDS, Plaintiff,
v.
The CITY OF NEW YORK, Undercover Police
Officer Shield # 0048, and John Doe, Defendants.
16-CV9124
(PGG) (KNF)
|
Signed 03/08/2018
Attorneys and Law Firms
Jessica Massimi, The Law Offices of Michael S. Lamonsoff,
PLLC, New York, NY, for Plaintiff.
John L. Garcia, New York City Law Department, New York,
NY, for Defendants.

York Criminal Procedure Law (‘CPL’) ] § 160.50 1 release
by a date certain”; and (b) Edwards requests “that the
Court issue a protective Order regarding documents related to
Plaintiff’s arrests.” Docket Entry No. 41.
The defendants served Edwards with their first set of
document requests, on August 1, 2017, including Document
Request No. 12, which states:

Complete and provide the annexed
blank authorization for access to
plaintiff’s records that may be sealed
pursuant to N. Y. C. P. L. §§ 160.50 and
160.55. Note that the authorizations
for access to plaintiff’s records [that]
may be sealed pursuant to N.Y.C.P.L.
§§ 160.50 and 160.55 that is annexed
hereto differs from the authorization
that may have been provided at the
outset of this litigation in that it is not
limited to documents pertaining to the
arrest and/or prosecution that is the
subject of this litigation.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
KEVIN
NATHANIEL
MAGISTRATE JUDGE

FOX,

UNITED

STATES

Discovery Dispute Docket Entry No. 41
*1 Ramel Edwards (“Edwards”) commenced this action,
asserting false arrest, denial of his right to a fair trial,
malicious prosecution and municipal liability, pursuant to
42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1988. Edwards alleges that, on
January 29, 2016, while he “was lawfully present inside
1420 Grand Concourse, County of the Bronx, City and
State of New York,” “Undercover Police Officer Shield
# 0048 (“UC 48”) and John Doe arrived in uniform and
on duty,” and “[w]ithout any explanation, warning, or
justification, one of the individual Defendants drew his
gun pointed it at the Plaintiff, and instructed him to get
against the wall.” Edwards was arrested and “arraigned on
a criminal complaint containing false allegations sworn to
by [UC 48] ... that Plaintiff possessed and sold marijuana.”
Thereafter, “all charges against Plaintiff were dismissed in
their entirety on June 15, 2016.” Before the Court is the
parties' joint letter, dated February 23, 2018, in which: (a)
the defendants “request that the Court compel Plaintiff to
provide a properly completed and executed blanket [New

On August 31, 2017, Edwards objected to Document
Request No. 12 as follows: “Plaintiff objects on the
grounds the request is neither relevant nor reasonably
calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.
Without waiving this objection, Plaintiff hereby encloses said
authorization.” The defendants contend that the plaintiff’s
“enclosed authorization, however, was not the requested
release, but rather a release that contained the same language
as the release that Plaintiff provided at the onset of litigation,
pursuant to Local Civil Rule 83.10.” On October 5, 2017,
the defendants served Edwards with a deficiency letter,
requesting “that Plaintiff provide a blanket § 160.50 Release.”
Edwards responded the same day that he “will not be
providing a 160.50 release beyond that which was provided
at the outset of this litigation.” According to the defendants,
on February 2, 2018, they “raised this issue again” via an
e-mail message, and “Plaintiff again stated that he will not
be providing a blanket § 160.50 Release. Defendants now
move to compel same.” The defendants assert that, since
Edwards stated in response to their Document Request No.
12 that “he would provide ‘said authorization,’ ” he “should
be compelled to provide the proper blanket § 160.50 release,
which he said he would provide and to which he asserted no

© 2020 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.

1

Case 1:16-cv-03088-JGK-RWL Document 210 Filed 07/17/20 Page 5 of 10

Edwards v. City of New York, Not Reported in Fed. Supp. (2018)

valid objection.” The defendants contend that “[t]he full arrest
history of a plaintiff bringing a false arrest claim is relevant to
any defense regarding causation and the severity of that [sic]
plaintiff’s alleged damages.” According to the defendants,
“courts in this Circuit routinely require production of blanket
§ 160.50 release in false arrest and malicious prosecution
cases,” because “[i]nformation about [Edwards’s] prior
arrests is plainly relevant to mitigate or controvert his
damages.” Moreover, the defendants “produced a list of
Plaintiff’s arrest[s] showing that Plaintiff was arrested 20
times before the arrest at issue,” and if “Plaintiff challenges
the accuracy of Defendants' production of Plaintiff s list of
arrests, Defendants require the underlying arrest records as a
means of further verification that Plaintiff was in fact arrested
on the dates listed.” Since the plaintiff s “New York State
Rap Sheet only shows one of Plaintiff’s 20 prior arrests,
thereby indicating that the remaining 19 arrests are sealed,”
the defendants can only obtain those records with a “blanket
release.”
*2 Edwards contends that the defendants “waived the
particular objection that they now belatedly raise in this
instant letter,” because
[t]he Defendants admit that they did not serve Plaintiff
with a deficiency letter until October 5, 2017, where
they requested that Plaintiff provide a blanket § 160.50
Release. Plaintiff responded by letter that same day stating
that, “Plaintiff will not be providing a 160.50 release
beyond that which was provided at the outset of this
litigation.” The defendants then waited an additional four
months to raise this issue again. Now, nearly five months
after Plaintiff served his discovery responses and two
months after Plaintiff’s deposition, the Defendants seek
sealed documents which have no bearing on this litigation.
Contrary to Defendants' contentions, at the outset of this
litigation, Plaintiff provided the Defendants with a § 160.50
Release allowing them to access (1) sealed records related
to the arrest underlying this incident, and (2) a list of
all of Plaintiff’s prior arrests. That Plaintiff responded to
Defendants' document requests—six months ago—stating
that the broader, blanket § 160.50 Release would be
provided was an error. Plaintiff objects to providing the
blanket § 160.50 release on the grounds that it is irrelevant
to any claim or defense and is not proportional to the needs
of this case.
Edwards asserts that the defendants' request “is premised on
their apparent belief that they will be permitted to inform the
jury at trial about Plaintiff’s prior arrests that did not result

in convictions. However, Courts in this circuit have ruled that
this type of information is not admissible at trial.” Edwards
seeks a protective order “regarding documents related to [his]
arrests which are unrelated to this incident.”
Legal Standard
Unless otherwise limited by court order, the scope of
discovery is as follows: Parties may obtain discovery
regarding any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any
party’s claim or defense and proportional to the needs of
the case, considering the importance of the issues at stake
in the action, the amount in controversy, the parties' relative
access to relevant information, the parties' resources, the
importance of the discovery in resolving the issues, and
whether the burden or expense of the proposed discovery
outweighs its likely benefit. Information within this scope
of discovery need not be admissible in evidence to be
discoverable.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1).
A party may serve on any other party a request within
the scope of Rule 26(b): (1) to produce and permit the
requesting party or its representative to inspect, copy,
test, or sample the following items in the responding
party’s possession, custody, or control: (A) any designated
documents or electronically stored information—including
writings, drawings, graphs, charts, photographs, sound
recordings, images, and other data or data compilations
—stored in any medium from which information can be
obtained either directly or, if necessary, after translation by
the responding party into a reasonably usable form; or (B)
any designated tangible things.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 34(a)(1).
*3 “For each item or category, the response must either
state that inspection and related activities will be permitted as
requested or state with specificity the grounds for objecting
to the request, including the reasons.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 34(b)
(2)(B). “A party seeking discovery may move for an order
compelling an answer, designation, production, or inspection.
This motion may be made if ... a party fails to produce
documents.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(3)(B)(iv). Motions to
compel, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 37, are left to the sound
discretion of the court. See United States v. Sanders, 211 F.3d
711, 720 (2d Cir. 2000).
Application of Legal Standard

© 2020 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.

2

Case 1:16-cv-03088-JGK-RWL Document 210 Filed 07/17/20 Page 6 of 10

Edwards v. City of New York, Not Reported in Fed. Supp. (2018)

The defendants' Document Request No. 12 does not seek
to inspect, copy, test or sample any documents or tangible
things, as Rule 34 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
contemplates; rather, it requests that the plaintiff “[c]omplete
and provide the annexed blank authorization for access to
plaintiff’s records that may be sealed pursuant to N.Y.C.P.L.
§§ 160.50 and 160.55.” No rule or binding authority requires
Edwards to “[c]omplete and provide ... the annexed blank
authorization” prepared by the defendants, and the defendants
do not make citation to any authority to the contrary.
The defendants knew, on March 31, 2017, that Edwards
responded to their Document Request No. 12 by producing
the same release that he already produced at the beginning
of litigation, as required by Local Civil Rule 83.10 of this
court. The defendants do not explain why they waited: (a)
from August 31, 2017, until October 5, 2017, to serve
Edwards “with a deficiency letter”; or (b) from October
5, 2017, when Edward responded to their deficiency letter
informing the defendants that he “will not be providing a
160.50 release beyond that which was provided at the outset
of this litigation,” to February 23, 2018, to raise this issue with
Court.
Notwithstanding the defendants' lack of diligence and the
fact that their Document Request No. 12 does not seek
any documents but requests that Edwards complete “the
annexed blank authorization” the defendants prepared, the
Court finds that Edwards did not waive his objection based
on relevancy to the defendants' Document Request No. 12,
seeking, implicitly, all Edwards’s records sealed pursuant to
CPL § 160.50. In support of their position that Edwards’s
“full arrest history” is “relevant to any defenses regarding
causation and the severity of ... plaintiff’s alleged damages,”
the defendants rely on “courts in this Circuit” that “routinely
require production of blanket § 160.50 Releases in false arrest
and malicious prosecution cases.” However, the Court is not
convinced by the explanation of relevancy proffered by the
defendants, namely,
“[c]learly, it could be credibly argued that one who has had
a number of prior arrests and detentions is likely to have
suffered less distress than one who has had a number of
prior arrests and detentions is likely to have suffered less
distress than one who has never been detained.” Wilson
v. City of New York, 06 Civ. 229 (AAR) (VVP), 2006

U.S. Dist. LEXIS 90050 at *1-2 (E.D.N.Y. Dec. 13, 2006).
The same conclusion was reached in Cicero v. City of
New York, No. 11 CV 0360 (NGG) (CLP), 2011 U.S. Dist.
LEXIS 80880, 2011 WL 3099898 .D.N.Y. July 25, 2011).
Here, Plaintiff is claiming emotional injuries stemming
from his arrest and prosecution at issue. Information about
his prior arrests is plainly relevant to mitigate or controvert
his damages.
Edwards served the defendants with: (i) the release pursuant
to CPL § 160.50 for sealed arrest records for the arrest that is
the subject of his complaint; and (ii) a list of all prior arrests,
as required by Local Civil Rule 83.10 of this court. Edwards
alleges in his complaint that, “[a]s a result” of the defendants'
conduct in connection with his arrest that is the subject
of this action, he sustained “mental anguish, shock, fright,
apprehension, embarrassment, humiliation, and deprivation
of his constitutional rights,” Docket Entry No. 1, ¶ 34. Given
that Edwards does not make any allegations related to his
prior arrests, which are unrelated to the underlying arrest
in this action, the Court finds that Edwards’s prior arrest
records, sealed pursuant to CPL ¶ 160.50, are irrelevant to the
claims and defenses in this action and not proportional to the
needs of the case. Accordingly, Edwards’s objection to the
defendants' Document Request No. 12, based on the ground of
relevancy, is sustained, and compelling Edwards to “provide
the proper blanket § 160.50 release” is not warranted. Given
that Edwards need not “provide the proper blanket § 160.50
release,” no protective order is warranted.
Conclusion
*4 For the foregoing reasons: (a) the defendants' request
to “compel Plaintiff to provide a properly completed and
executed blanket § 160.50 release by a date certain”; and (b)
Edwards’s request “that the Court issue a protective order
regarding documents related to Plaintiff’s arrests,” in the
parties' joint February 23, 2018 letter, Docket Entry No. 41,
are denied.
SO ORDERED.
All Citations
Not Reported in Fed. Supp., 2018 WL 1240305

Footnotes

1

CPL § 160.50(1) provides, in pertinent part: “Upon the termination of a criminal action or proceeding against a person in
favor of such person ... the records of such action or proceeding shall be sealed.”

© 2020 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.

3

Case 1:16-cv-03088-JGK-RWL Document 210 Filed 07/17/20 Page 7 of 10

Edwards v. City of New York, Not Reported in Fed. Supp. (2018)

End of Document

© 2020 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.

© 2020 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.

4

Case 1:16-cv-03088-JGK-RWL Document 210 Filed 07/17/20 Page 8 of 10
Case 1:16-cv-03088-JGK-RWL Document 208 Filed 07/15/20 Page 1 of 3

THE CITY OF NEW YORK

LAW DEPARTMENT

JAMES E. JOHNSON
Corporation Counsel

100 CHURCH STREET
NEW YORK, NY 10007

NICOLETTE PELLEGRINO
Assistant Corporation Counsel
Phone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
Email: [e-mail]

July 15, 2020
VIA E.C.F.
Honorable John G. Koeltl
United States District Judge
United States District Court
Southern District of New York
500 Pearl Street
New York, New York 10007
Re:

James Lastra v. City of New York, et al.,
16 Civ. 3088 (JGK) (RWL)

Your Honor:
I am an Assistant Corporation Counsel in the Special Federal Litigation Division
of the New York City Law Department and the attorney representing defendants the City of New
York, New York City Police (“NYPD”) Officer Deshawn Edmonds, and NYPD Officer James
Antoine (collectively, “Defendants”) in the above referenced matter. The Defendants write in
opposition to the Plaintiff’s July 14, 2020 Letter.
I.

Relevant Background

By way of background, on June 30, 2020, the parties participated in a discovery
conference before the Court, and the Court ordered Plaintiff to, among other things, execute and
produce a release that would allow the Defendants to obtain a list of his prior arrests, if any, from
the NYPD. (See June 30, 2020 Dkt. Entry.) On July 1, 2020, the Court memorialized its rulings
from the discovery conference and specifically directed Plaintiff to, by July 21, 2020, “provide a
fully executed release for records from the arrest at issue in this case and for a list of his prior
arrests, if any” (i.e., a release pursuant to Local Civil Rule 83.10, commonly known as “the
Plan”) (hereinafter, “Release Pursuant to the Plan”). (See Dkt. No. 204.)
Fifteen days from the Court’s June 30, 2020 verbal Order, and fourteen days from
the Court’s written Order, the Plaintiff e-mailed an extension request to your Honor, seeking an
extension of time to file an appeal concerning the Court’s Order, mainly regarding the Release
Pursuant to the Plan, and also to stay the deadlines set forth in the July 1, 2020 Order until the
Court is able to make a decision on the Plaintiff’s appeal. (See Plaintiff’s July 14, 2020 Letter at
pp. 1-2.) Among other reasons, Plaintiff argues that: (a) he did not have adequate time to prepare

Case 1:16-cv-03088-JGK-RWL Document 210 Filed 07/17/20 Page 9 of 10
Case 1:16-cv-03088-JGK-RWL Document 208 Filed 07/15/20 Page 2 of 3

for the June 30, 2020 conference, and (b) the undersigned was “speaking in a tone that was not
audible” during the conference. Plaintiff further references Edwards v. City of New York, 16CV-9124 (PGG) (KNF), 2018 WL 1240305 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 8, 2018) as authority for why the
Court should have ruled differently. (See id.)
II.

The Defendants Respectfully Request that the Court Deny the Plaintiff’s July 14,
2020 Request.

As an initial matter, in violation of the Court’s Individual Rules of Practice, the
Plaintiff did not seek the Defendants’ consent for an extension of time before contacting the
Court, nor did he note whether the Defendants consented to his July 14, 2020 Request.
In addition, the June 30, 2020 Conference, initially scheduled for March 24, 2020,
had been adjourned twice at the Plaintiff’s request, and for approximately three months, before
finally taking place on June 30, 2020. (See Dkt. Nos. 196-197, 202.) Upon information and
belief, Plaintiff did not seek any additional adjournment of the June 30, 2020 conference, nor did
he make any objection to the conference proceeding on June 30, 2020. In addition, during the
conference, Plaintiff did not complain about the quality of the undersigned’s audibility.1
In any event, Defendants respectfully request that the Court deny Plaintiff’s
request because Plaintiff’s purported “appeal,” which is in fact an objection, is without merit. As
Magistrate Judge Lehrburger’s discovery rulings set forth in the July 1, 2020 Order regard nondispositive matters, Rule 72(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure governs. Rule 72(a)
states:
Nondispositive Matters. When a pretrial matter not dispositive of a party’s claim
or defense is referred to a magistrate judge to hear and decide, the magistrate
judge must promptly conduct the required proceedings and, when appropriate,
issue a written order stating the decision. A party may serve and file objections to
the order within 14 days after being served with a copy. A party may not assign as
error a defect in the order not timely objected to. The district judge in the case
must consider timely objections and modify or set aside any part of the order that
is clearly erroneous or is contrary to law.
Fed. R. Civ. Pro. R. 72(a) (emphasis added).
Here, Plaintiff’s purported objection to Magistrate Judge Lehrburger’s July 1,
2020 Order is without merit because he is unable to demonstrate that any part of the Order is
“clearly erroneous or contrary to law.” (Id.) First, Plaintiff was required to provide the release at
issue at the outset of this litigation pursuant to the Plan, yet he failed to do so. Moreover, in the
Edwards case, which Plaintiff cites to in his request, the plaintiff had already provided the
defendants with a release pursuant to Local Civil Rule 83.10. See Edwards v. City of New York,
1

Upon information and belief, at one point during the conference, the Plaintiff noted to the Court that he
had trouble hearing. As such, the Court and/or the undersigned repeated their relevant statement(s). Upon
information and belief, the Plaintiff made no specific complaints concerning whether the undersigned was
“speaking in a tone that was not audible.”

2

Case 1:16-cv-03088-JGK-RWL Document 210 Filed 07/17/20 Page 10 of 10
Case 1:16-cv-03088-JGK-RWL Document 208 Filed 07/15/20 Page 3 3

No. 16-CV-9124 (PGG) (KNF), 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 52080, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 8, 2018).
Here, that is precisely the kind of release that Magistrate Judge Lehrburger’s July 1, 2020 Order
directed Plaintiff to execute and produce to the Defendants.
Accordingly, the Defendants respectfully request that the Court deny the
Plaintiff’s application in its entirety.
The Defendants thank the Court for its consideration.
Respectfully submitted,
___/s/_ Nicolette Pellegrino_____
Nicolette Pellegrino
Assistant Corporation Counsel
Special Federal Litigation Division
CC:

VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL2
James Lastra
Plaintiff Pro Se
[e-mail]

2

In accordance with the Court’s March 23, 2020 Order and the agreement between the parties concerning
electronic service pending the coronavirus pandemic, the Defendants will send a copy of this letter to the
Plaintiff via e-mail. (See Dkt. No. 197.)

3