Portillo v. Aponte et al
Filing
111
ORDER: granting 110 Letter Motion for Discovery. Application Granted. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Magistrate Judge Gabriel W. Gorenstein on 9/28/2021) Copies Mailed By Chambers. (ama)
Case 1:16-cv-04731-VEC-GWG Document 110 Filed 09/27/21 Page 1 of 2
GEORGIA M. PESTANA
Corporation Counsel
STEFANO PÉREZ
Assistant Corporation Counsel
Phone: (212) 356-2381
Fax: (212) 356-3509
sperez@law.nyc.gov
THE CITY OF NEW YORK
LAW DEPARTMENT
100 CHURCH STREET
NEW YORK, NY 10007
September 27, 2021
BY ECF
Honorable Gabriel W. Gorenstein
United States Magistrate Judge
Southern District of New York
Daniel Patrick Moynihan United States Courthouse
500 Pearl Street
New York, New York 10007
MEMORADUM ENDORSEMENT
Re: Jamie Portillo v. C.O. Jennifer Webb, et. al.,
16-CV-4731 (VEC) (GWG)
Your Honor:
I am the attorney assigned to the defense of the above matter. Defendants
Jennifer Webb, Manuel Aldir and Lucyna Gasanov respectfully write to request leave to reopen
the deposition of plaintiff in light of new information that was discovered within plaintiff’s New
York State Department of Corrections and Community Supervision (“DOCCS”) mental health
and medical records, which were recently received. This application is made without plaintiff’s
consent, as plaintiff, who appears pro se, is incarcerated and thus, cannot be reached
expeditiously.
By Order dated September 15, 2021, the Court granted defendants a sixty day
extension of the discovery deadline, from September 17, 2021 to November 16, 2021 for the
limited purpose of obtaining and reviewing plaintiff’s DOCCS mental health and medical
records, and a corresponding extension of time to file a proposed briefing schedule for their
anticipated motion for summary judgment. Defendants have since received and reviewed
plaintiff’s DOCCS medical and mental records, and mailed copies of same to plaintiff.
Defendants note that plaintiff’s DOCCS medical records contain references to a potential prior
accident that plaintiff did not previously disclose and may impact the injuries alleged in the
instant matter.
In light of the new information obtained, defendants submit that further deposition
testimony, limited to the newly discovered prior accident, is warranted. Upon completion of
plaintiff’s deposition session on July 22, 2021, defendants noted on the record that the deposition
would be left open pending receipt of outstanding discovery. See Deposition Transcript of
Plaintiff from July 22, 2021 at 87:2-6, annexed hereto as Exhibit A. Pursuant to the provisions
of Rule 30(a)(2)(A)(ii) and Rule 26(b)(2)(C) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, defendants
submit that they should be granted leave to reopen plaintiff’s deposition as new information has
Case 1:16-cv-04731-VEC-GWG Document 110 Filed 09/27/21 Page 2 of 2
come to light subsequent to plaintiff’s deposition which may impact the injuries alleged here.
Where new information exists that would warrant further deposition testimony, and the party has
sought leave of court to redepose, courts often grant the application to reopen the questioning on
the new information. Keck v. Union Bank of Switz., 1997 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10578, 1997 WL
411931 (S.D.N.Y. July 22, 1997). Should the Court be inclined to grant this application,
defendants will promptly coordinate with plaintiff’s correctional facility to complete plaintiff’s
deposition within the existing discovery period, which is currently scheduled to expire on
November 16, 2021.
Defendants thank the Court for its time and consideration in this matter.
Respectfully submitted,
Stefano Pérez
S/
____________
Stefano Pérez
Assistant Corporation Counsel
Special Federal Litigation Division
To:
BY FIRST-CLASS MAIL
Jamie Portillo
Plaintiff Pro Se
DIN: 16-A-4805
Eastern NY Correctional Facility
30 Institution Road
P.O. Box 338
Napanoch, NY 12458-0338
Application Granted
So Ordered.
September 28, 2021
Copies Mailed by Chambers
2
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?