Dr. Joseph Wilson, Ph.D. v. State of New York et al
| Colin Colin A. Moore, Esq. and Dr. Joseph Wilson, Ph.D. |
| Terrence Cheng, City of New York, Dr. Caroline Arnold, Ph.D., Dr. Corey Robin, Ph.D., Dr. Gaston Alonso, Ph.D., Dr. Jeanne Theoharis, Ph.D., Dr. Mark Ungar, Ph.D., Dr. Paisley Currah, Ph.D., Karen L. Gould, Secretary Barbara Haugstatter, Esq. Michael T. Hewitt, Esq. Marcia Isaacson, John Kotowski, Kimberly Phillips, Pamela Pollack, Esq. Frederick P. Schaffer, State of New York and William A. Tramontano |
| Brooklyn College |
| City University of New York |
| 1:2015cv00023 |
| January 5, 2015 |
| US District Court for the Eastern District of New York |
| Brooklyn Office |
| Carol Bagley Amon |
| Vera M. Scanlon |
| Civil Rights: Other |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 1331 Fed. Question |
| Plaintiff |
Follow case documents by RSS
Available Case Documents
The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing
140
ORDER: The five outstanding discovery requests outlined in the parties' June 18, 2021 joint status report at ECF No. 135 are decided as follows:(1) Plaintiff's Computer Files: Plaintiffs request for leave to subpoena CUNY to obta in a third production of Dr. Wilson's computer files is denied. (2) Boxes from Plaintiff's Office: Plaintiff's request for leave to subpoena CUNY to produce information relating to the unaccounted for 22 boxes is g ranted. Plaintiff shall submit a proposed subpoena for the Court to "so order" by April 10, 2022. If Plaintiff fails to comply with this deadline, he is precluded from seeking the subpoena.(3) OAG Investigative File: Plaintiffs request for leave to subpoena the OAG for the investigative file relating to the search of Dr. Wilsons office at Brooklyn College (see ECF No. 136) is denied. (4) Privilege Log: Plaintiff's motion to compel Defendants to produce a privilege log is granted. Defendants shall provide an affirmative statement to Plaintiff in writing of whether any documents were withheld on the basis of privilege (at any point in this litigation by any defendant represente d by the OAG), and if so, provide a full privilege log, by April 21, 2022. (5) Depositions of Currah and Isaacson: Plaintiff request to reopen the depositions of Currah and Isaacson is denied with leave to renew. In light of the above rulings, the Court sua sponte extends the deadline to complete the above-listed limited discovery to June 1, 2022, with a joint status report (not to exceed three pages) due the same day certifying that the limited discovery has c losed. The parties shall meet and confer in good faith and shall cooperate to complete the limited outstanding discovery in this case. Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(1); E.D.N.Y. Local R. 37.3(a); M. Henry Individual Practice Rule § V.B. See the attached order for details. So Ordered by Magistrate Judge Marcia M. Henry on 03/31/2022.
|
|
Filing
55
MEMORANDUM & ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS. The Court also grants defendants' renewed motion to dismiss with respect to the claims reasserted in the Third Amended Complaint that were dismissed from the Second Amended Complaint. The Court denies defendants' renewed motion to dismiss Wilson's claims for defamation against Defendant Cheng and for search and seizure against Defendants Currah and Isaacson. Accordingly, the claims that will move forward are: (1) sea rch and seizure violation under § 1983 against Defendants Currah and Issacson; (2) conversion against Defendants Currah and Issacson; and (3) defamation against Defendant Cheng. ( Ordered by Judge Carol Bagley Amon on undated ). (Guzzi, Roseann)
|
Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the US Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.
Access this case on the New York Eastern District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System
- Search for Party Aliases
- Associated Cases
- Attorneys
- Case File Location
- Case Summary
- Docket Report
- History/Documents
- Parties
- Related Transactions
- Check Status
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.
