Robakidze v. The County of Westchester et al

Filing 9

ORDER granting in part #8 Letter Motion to Adjourn Conference.Application granted in part. The October 10, 2024 initial conference is adjourned sine die. The proposed Civil Case Discovery Plan and Order will still be due one week before the adjourned date of the initial conference. Plaintiff is directed to file a response to this letter by 9/27/2024 regarding the 160.50 release and, in particular, when that release will be provided. SO ORDERED.. (Signed by Judge Philip M. Halpern on 9/23/2024) (jca)

Case 7:24-cv-05981-PMH

Document 8

Filed 09/23/24

Page 1 of 2

Application granted in part. The October 10, 2024
initial conference is adjourned sine die. The
proposed Civil Case Discovery Plan and Order will
still be due one week before the adjourned date of
the initial conference. Plaintiff is directed to file a
response to this letter by 9/27/2024 regarding the
160.50 release and, in particular, when that release
will be provided.

George Latimer
County Executive
Department of Law
John M. Nonna
County Attorney

SO ORDERED.

VIA CM/ECF

_______________________
Philip M. Halpern
United States District Judge

Honorable Phillip M. Halpern
U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York
United States District Courthouse
Dated: White Plains, New York
300 Quarropas St., Chambers 520
September 23, 2024
White Plains, NY 10601-4150
Re:

Letter Motion for Adjournment of Initial Conference and Extension of
Deadline to Submit Proposed Case Management & Discovery Schedule
Robakidze v. The County of Westchester, et al., No. 24-cv-05981 (PMH)
(S.D.N.Y.)

Your Honor,
Pursuant to paragraph I(C) of this Court’s Individual Practices in Civil Cases, dated May
19, 2024 (“Individual Practices”), defendant County of Westchester (the “County”) hereby
request:
(i)

Initial Conference: An adjournment of the initial conference in this matter, which
is currently scheduled for Thursday, October 10, 2024 (see CM/ECF Doc. No. 7),
to a date sixty days after plaintiff Zaza Robakidze (“Plaintiff’) serves this Office
(via email or otherwise) with a release of criminal records that have been sealed
pursuant to Section 160.50 of the New York Criminal Procedural Law (a Ҥ 160.50
Release”); and

(ii)

Proposed Discovery Schedule: An extension of the deadline for the parties to
submit their proposed case management and discovery schedule (“Proposed
Discovery Schedule”) until 5:00 p.m. on the evening before the adjourned date of
the initial conference.

This is the first request for an adjournment and for an extension. Plaintiff has not responded
to communications regarding this request. Co-defendant, Town/Village of Harrison consents to
adjournment.
Relevant Background
On July 17, 2024, Plaintiff commenced the above-reference action in the Supreme Court
of the State of New York, County of Westchester. See CM/ECF Doc. No. 1-1 (Notice of Removal,
Exhibit 1) at 8–35 [hereinafter, “Complt.”]). The crux of Plaintiff’s complaint involves a
prosecution that was allegedly terminated and dismissed by the Westchester County District
Attorney’s Office on January 5, 2024 (the “Underlying Prosecution”). Complt. ¶ 22. Plaintiff
Michaelian Office Building
148 Martine Avenue, 6th Floor
White Plains, New York 10601

Telephone: [phone]

Fax: [phone]

Case 7:24-cv-05981-PMH

Document 8

Filed 09/23/24

Page 2 of 2

alleges that the charges within the Underlying Prosecution were “baseless,” “defamatory,” and
“without probable cause.” Complt. ¶¶ 22, 25. To date, Plaintiff has not provided the County with
a § 160.50 release for the Underlying Prosecution—without which, County Defendants cannot
confirm evaluate the veracity of Plaintiff’s claims.
On August 6, 2024, defendant Town/Village of Harrison removed the action to federal
court. See CM/ECF Doc. No. 1 (Notice of Removal). On August 23, 2024, the Mediation Office
of the United States District Court for the Southern Office (the “Mediation Office”) designated
this matter for participation in the Plan for Certain § 1983 Cases Against Police Departments in
Westchester, Rockland, Putnam, Orange, Dutchess or Sullivan Counties (the “1983 Plan”). See
Dkt. Entry of 08/23/2024 (No Document). As a result of that designation: service upon the County
is not complete under they are served with a § 160.50 release and the County’s time to answer or
otherwise respond will be sixty days from the date they get the waiver (see 1983 Plan ¶¶ 1(a), 3).
On August 23, 2024, this Office sent Plaintiff’s counsel a letter requesting a § 160.50 Waiver in
accordance with the 1983 Plan. See Exhibit A (Letter Requesting § 160.50 Release). As of the date
of this letter motion, County Defendants have not received a § 160.50 Release.
Rationale for County Defendants’ Request
By granting defendants at least eighty days from the date of service to answer a complaint,
the 1983 Plan implicitly recognizes that (i) it takes time to marshal sealed criminal court
documents, and (ii) such sealed criminal documents are susceptible to consideration on a motion
to dismiss. See Elek v. Inc. Vill. of Monroe, 815 F. Supp. 3d 801, 805 (S.D.N.Y. 2011). Should
the Court instead direct the parties to propose a case management and discovery schedule at this
early date the County could spend the better part of discovery running down documents that should
have been made available to them before they answer. 1
Respectfully submitted,
JOHN M. NONNA
Westchester County Attorney
Attorney for County Defendants
By:
CC:

All Parties (via CM/ECF)

1

Robert Taglia
Assistant County Attorney, of Counsel

For the Court’s reference, please see Case 7:24-cv-02055-KMK (Document 13) in which the
Honorable Kenneth M. Karas responded to a similar request in a § 1983 Plan case by adjourning
the preliminary conference, indefinitely, until service of the 160.50 waiver.
2