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)

Download PDF
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?