Winfield et al v. City Of New York
Plaintiff: Janell Winfield, Tracey Stewart and Shauna Noel
Defendant: City of New York
Case Number: 1:2015cv05236
Filed: July 7, 2015
Court: US District Court for the Southern District of New York
Office: Foley Square Office
County: New York
Presiding Judge: Laura Taylor Swain
Nature of Suit: Housing/Accommodations
Cause of Action: 28 U.S.C. ยง 1331
Jury Demanded By: Plaintiff

Available Case Documents

The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:

Date Filed Document Text
July 19, 2022 Opinion or Order Filing 957 ORDER: In light of the pending motion(s), the final pretrial conference scheduled for July 29, 2022, is rescheduled to October 7, 2022, at 11:30 a.m. in Courtroom 17C. SO ORDERED. ( Final Pretrial Conference set for 10/7/2022 at 11:30 AM in Courtroom 17C, 500 Pearl Street, New York, NY 10007 before Judge Laura Taylor Swain.) (Signed by Judge Laura Taylor Swain on 7/19/2022) (vfr)
April 18, 2022 Opinion or Order Filing 956 ORDER: In light of the pending motion(s), the final pretrial conference scheduled for April 29, 2022, is rescheduled to July 29, 2022, at 11:30 a.m. in Courtroom 17C. SO ORDERED. ( Final Pretrial Conference set for 7/29/2022 at 11:30 AM in Courtroom 17C, 500 Pearl Street, New York, NY 10007 before Judge Laura Taylor Swain.) (Signed by Judge Laura Taylor Swain on 4/18/2022) (vfr)
January 18, 2022 Opinion or Order Filing 954 ORDER: In light of the pending motion(s), the final pretrial conference scheduled for January 28, 2022, is rescheduled to April 29, 2022, at 11:30 a.m. in Courtroom 17C. ( Final Pretrial Conference set for 4/29/2022 at 11:30 AM in Courtroom 17C, 500 Pearl Street, New York, NY 10007 before Judge Laura Taylor Swain.) (Signed by Judge Laura Taylor Swain on 1/18/2022) (ate)
September 24, 2021 Opinion or Order Filing 953 ORDER: In light of the pending motion(s), the final pretrial conference scheduled for October 8, 2021, is rescheduled to January 28, 2022, at 11:30 a.m. in Courtroom 17C. SO ORDERED. ( Final Pretrial Conference set for 1/28/2022 at 11:30 AM in Courtroom 17C, 500 Pearl Street, New York, NY 10007 before Judge Laura Taylor Swain.) (Signed by Judge Laura Taylor Swain on 9/24/2021) (vfr)
April 19, 2021 Opinion or Order Filing 951 ORDER: In light of the pending motion(s), the final pretrial conference scheduled for April 23,2021, is rescheduled to July 23, 2021, at 11:30 a.m. in Courtroom 17C. So Ordered. (Final Pretrial Conference set for 7/23/2021 at 11:30 AM in Courtroom 17C, 500 Pearl Street, New York, NY 10007 before Judge Laura Taylor Swain.) (Signed by Judge Laura Taylor Swain on 4/19/2021) (js)
January 14, 2021 Opinion or Order Filing 936 ORDER: In light of the pending motion(s), the final pretrial conference scheduled for January 22, 2021, is rescheduled to April 23, 2021, at 11:00 a.m. in Courtroom 17C. SO ORDERED. (Final Pretrial Conference set for 4/23/2021 at 11:00 AM in Courtroom 17C, 500 Pearl Street, New York, NY 10007 before Judge Laura Taylor Swain.) (Signed by Judge Laura Taylor Swain on 1/14/2021) (jca)
November 23, 2020 Opinion or Order Filing 926 MEMORANDUM ORDER: denying 919 Letter Motion to Seal. For the reasons stated above, Defendant has not demonstrated that the strong presumption of public access which attaches to the Document is outweighed by any competing interests or that redaction is essential to preserve higher values and would be narrowly tailored to serve that interest. Accordingly, Plaintiffs' request to redact portions of the Document is denied, and Plaintiffs shall file the Document without redactions. This order resolves Docket Entry No. 919. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Laura Taylor Swain on 11/23/2020) (ama)
November 5, 2020 Opinion or Order Filing 912 ORDER: In light of the pending motion(s), the final pretrial conference scheduled for November 20, 2020, is rescheduled to January 22, 2021, at 11:00 a.m. in Courtroom 17C. SO ORDERED., ( Final Pretrial Conference set for 1/22/2021 at 11:00 AM in Courtroom 17C, 500 Pearl Street, New York, NY 10007 before Judge Laura Taylor Swain.) (Signed by Judge Laura Taylor Swain on 11/05/2020) (ama)
September 30, 2020 Opinion or Order Filing 909 ORDER granting 906 Letter Motion for Extension of Time to File. The request is granted. DE# 906 resolved. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Laura Taylor Swain on 9/24/2020) (kv)
March 4, 2020 Opinion or Order Filing 880 ORDER: In light of the anticipated summary judgement motion, the final pretrial conference scheduled for March 13, 2020, is rescheduled to a control date of Friday, November 20, 2020, at 11:30 a.m. The related consultation and submission deadlines are suspended pending further order of the Court. SO ORDERED., ( Final Pretrial Conference set for 11/20/2020 at 11:30 AM before Judge Laura Taylor Swain.) (Signed by Judge Laura Taylor Swain on 3/04/2020) (ama)
January 22, 2020 Opinion or Order Filing 872 ORDER: On January 22, 2020, the parties appeared telephonically for a status conference. As discussed on the record, the parties shall provide a status letter by no later than February 5, 2020 regarding the necessity of additional time to brief anticipated dispositive motions in light of information from Dr. Beveridge's supplemental report. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Magistrate Judge Katharine H. Parker on 1/22/2020) (ks)
January 21, 2020 Opinion or Order Filing 870 ORDER CONVERTING STATUS CONFERENCE TO A TELEPHONE CONFERENCE: The Status Conference in this matter scheduled for Wednesday, January 22, 2020 at 2:00 p.m. is hereby converted to a telephonic conference. Counsel for the parties are directed to call Judge Parker's Chambers at the scheduled time with counsel for all parties on the line. Please dial 212-805-0234. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Magistrate Judge Katharine H. Parker on 1/21/2020) ( Telephone Conference set for 1/22/2020 at 02:00 PM before Magistrate Judge Katharine H. Parker.) (ks)
November 25, 2019 Opinion or Order Filing 840 ORDER: As discussed on the record, the following order is entered: Response Letter. Plaintiffs' response, if any, to the City's November 25, 2019 letter (ECF No. 839) is due by December 3, 2019. Document Production. The City is directed to produce an informal copy of the document discussed during today's conference as soon as practicable. Expert Discovery. To the extent that the City anticipates any changes to their expert's submissions, the City is directed to file a letter on ECF informing Plaintiffs and the Court as to the changes as soon as practicable but no later than December 6, 2019. Any changes to the expert report also shall be produced to Plaintiffs by December 6, 2019. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Magistrate Judge Katharine H. Parker on 11/25/2019) ( Responses due by 12/3/2019)(ks)
November 21, 2019 Opinion or Order Filing 836 OPINION AND ORDER ON MISCELLANEOUS DISCOVERY MOTIONS AND SCHEDULING ORDER re: 828 LETTER MOTION for Discovery related to ECF 799 documents addressed to Magistrate Judge Katharine H. Parker from Craig Gurian dated October 31, 2019 fil ed by Emmanuella Senat, Shauna Noel, 829 LETTER MOTION for Discovery related to CHPC report addressed to Magistrate Judge Katharine H. Parker from Craig Gurian dated October 31, 2019 filed by Emmanuella Senat, Shauna Noel. On October 31, 2019, Plaintiffs filed two letter motions requesting: (1) that the Court compel the City to produce a survey (and survey reactions) referenced in a document bearing Bates No. 191679, (2) that the Court compel Plaintiffs to search for and produce all documents concerning the "messaging recommendations" set forth in the document bearing Bates No. 191679, (3) that the Court order the City to search for and produce all documents concerning a "CB preference memo " referred to in a document bearing Bates No. 206745, (4) that the Court order the City to search for and produce all documents concerning the Citizens Housing & Planning Council for the period March 1, 2019 to the present; and (5) that the Court order the City to produce a draft internal survey regarding the Community Preference Policy referenced in a document bearing Bates No. 206749. With regard to item (1), the City has represented that it has conducted a diligent searc h but had no luck in locating the survey. The City is willing to reach out to a consultant who worked on the survey. Because it is not burdensome, the Court directs the City to request a copy of the survey from the consultant and produce the surv ey by November 27, 2019 to the extent the consultant has maintained a copy of it. With regard to Item (2), the City has represented that the documents requested fall within the documents already collected and reviewed and, thus, the C ity has exhausted its search for such documents. The City notes that it has produced documents falling within Plaintiffs requests including power point presentations and talking points reflecting the messaging used by the City. The Court finds t hat the City has met its burden and that the burdens of conducting another search to find possible additional documents on the topic that weren't already produced is not proportional to the needs of the case. The City has collected documents from over 55 custodians and expended substantial resources in reviewing and producing them. Additionally, because of several rulings of this Court, the City has been compelled to re-review the collected documents and produce certain documents th at it had withheld as privileged. Contrary to what Plaintiffs assert, they have been afforded extensive discovery and indeed represent that they have collected substantial proof in support of their claims. Therefore, the Court reject's Plain tiff's claims of prejudice in discovery. With regard to Item (3), the City has searched for the document and concluded that it is essentially the same as a document already produced. Therefore, Plaintiffs' concern about this docu ment is moot. With respect to Item (4), the issue is moot. The only reason Plaintiffs were seeking this information was to explore bias of an outside organization that purportedly wrote a reports critical of Plaintiffs' experts' report. However, the City has stated that it has no intention and agrees not to reference or utilize the outside organization's report. With regard to Item (5), the City has located the document but claims that it is protected by the work product doctrine. The City shall submit a copy of this document to the Court for in camera review by no later than November 25, 2019 with an explanation for its work product designation. Plaintiffs shall submit a short letter by November 27, 2019 setting forth why they believe the document is not protected. Finally, the parties shall attend a status conference at 4 p.m. on December 5, 2019 in Courtroom 17D. The Court will address any applications about the expert reports at that conferen ce. To the extent the parties wish to discuss other issues at the conference, they shall submit a letter proposing agenda items by no later than December 4, 2019. This resolves the motions at ECF Nos. 828 and 829. (Signed by Magistrate Judge Katharine H. Parker on 11/21/2019) (mro)
August 15, 2019 Opinion or Order Filing 800 OPINION AND ORDER: The Court appends a spreadsheet reflecting the Court's rulings on the 350 documents. The City is directed to re-review its privilege log consistent with this ruling and determine whether there are additional documents on its l og that must be de-designated as privileged. The City shall complete this task by September 30, 2019 and provide Plaintiffs with a supplemental production by that date. To the extent there are objections to this ruling, or Plaintiffs believe that th e Court should re-evaluate the balance of Rodriguez factors or wish to make a substantial need argument as to a specific document protected by the work product doctrine, this Court requests that the parties first file a motion for reconsideration with this Court. The parties shall notify the Court by letter if they intend to request reconsideration of a ruling as to a particular document by September 6, 2019. The Court will then set a briefing schedule as to any such motion. To the extent the City does not dispute this Court's ruling with respect to documents deemed non-privileged, it shall produce such documents by September 30, 2019. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Magistrate Judge Katharine H. Parker on 8/15/2019) (mml)
May 8, 2019 Opinion or Order Filing 745 MEMORANDUM ORDER terminating 565 Motion. Before the Court is an objection (Docket Entry No. 565), filed by Shauna Noel and Emmanuella Senat (collectively "Plaintiffs") pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(a), to an opinion and order entered by Magistrate Judge Katharine H. Parker on September 12, 2018, Winfield v. City of New York, No. 15-cv-05236, 2018 WL 4350246 (the "September 12th Order"), denying Plaintiffs' motion to compel the deposition of New York City Mayor Bill De Blasio and granting defendant City of New York's ("Defendant") corresponding cross-motion for a protective order. A party may file an objection to an order issued by a magistrate judge with a district judge wi thin 14 days of service of a copy of that order. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a). The district judge shall not disturb the order unless such "order is clearly erroneous or contrary to law." 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A) (LexisNexis 2017). After ca reful consideration of Judge Parker's September 12th Order and the submissions of both parties, the Court concludes that Judge Parker's order was neither clearly erroneous nor contrary to law. Plaintiffs' objection is, therefore, overruled and Judge Parker's order stands. This order resolves Docket Entry No. 565. (Signed by Judge Laura Taylor Swain on 5/8/2019) (rro)
April 2, 2019 Opinion or Order Filing 720 OPINION AND ORDER ON PLAINTIFF'S REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL DEPOSITION re: 711 LETTER MOTION for Discovery: For the reasons set forth above, Plaintiff's motion is DENIED. (Signed by Magistrate Judge Katharine H. Parker on 4/2/2019) (jwh) Modified on 4/2/2019 (jwh).
January 23, 2019 Opinion or Order Filing 689 OPINION AND ORDER: Defendant seeks to redact certain information that it claims is non-responsive and privileged from the following documents that the Court held in its December Order were not privileged and subject to disclosure: 49, 57, 64, and 35 0. Defendant's request is DENIED except that these documents may be designated "Confidential" pursuant to the Protective Order in place in this action, and as further set forth in this Order. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Magistrate Judge Katharine H. Parker on 1/23/2019) (jca)
December 18, 2018 Opinion or Order Filing 660 OPINION AND ORDER. The Court appends a spreadsheet reflecting the Court's rulings on the 500 documents. The Court also includes its own description of the documents in column R. The City is directed to re-review its privilege log consistent w ith this ruling and determine whether there are additional documents on its log that must be de-designated as privileged. The City shall complete this task by January 31, 2019 and provide Plaintiffs with an updated log and supplemental production by that date. To the extent there are objections to this ruling, or Plaintiffs believe that the Court should re-evaluate the balance of Rodriguez factors or wish to make a substantial need argument as to a specific document protected by the work p roduct doctrine, this Court requests that the parties first file a motion for reconsideration with this Court. The parties shall notify the Court by letter if they intend to request reconsideration of a ruling as to a particular document by Decemb er 31, 2018. The Court will then set a briefing schedule as to any such motion. To the extent the City does not dispute this Courts ruling with respect to documents deemed non-privileged, it shall produce such documents by January 31, 2019. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Magistrate Judge Katharine H. Parker on 12/18/2018) (anc)
December 12, 2018 Opinion or Order Filing 656 MEMORANDUM ORDER: The Court concludes that Judge Parker's order was neither clearly erroneous nor contrary to law. Plaintiffs' objection is, therefore, overruled and Judge Parker's September 14, 2017, Oral Order stands. This Memorandum Opinion and Order resolves Docket Entry No. 185. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Laura Taylor Swain on 12/12/2018) (ama)
December 3, 2018 Opinion or Order Filing 649 ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION: for 601 Report and Recommendations. The Court has reviewed carefully Magistrate Judge Parker's thorough and well reasoned Report and Recommendation and finds no clear error. The Court therefore adopt s the Report in its entirety for the reasons stated therein. Accordingly, Plaintiff Janell Winfield is dismissed form this case and the Clerk of Court is directed to amend the caption of this case accordingly. This Order resolves docket entry no. 552. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Laura Taylor Swain on 12/03/2018) (ama)
September 13, 2018 Opinion or Order Filing 547 OPINION AND ORDER re: 454 LETTER MOTION for Discovery (clawed-back OMB briefing document) addressed to Magistrate Judge Katharine H. Parker from Craig Gurian dated June 15, 2018. LETTER MOTION to Seal Document (exhibit 1 and le tter-motion redactions) addressed to Magistrate Judge Katharine H. Parker from Craig Gurian dated June 15, 2018. filed by Emmanuella Senat, Shauna Noel. Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel Disclosure of the October PPT is DENIED. The parties a re further directed to submit a joint letter to the Court three days in advance of the next Case Management Conference setting forth a proposed agenda and summarizing open discovery issues for discussion. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Magistrate Judge Katharine H. Parker on 9/13/18) (yv)
September 12, 2018 Opinion or Order Filing 545 OPINION AND ORDER re: 494 CROSS MOTION for Protective Order . filed by City of New York, 483 MOTION to Compel Mayor Bill de Blasio to to appear and give testimony at a deposition noticed pursuant to FRCP 30 . filed by Emmanuella Senat, Shauna Noel. Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel the Deposition of Mayor Bill de Blasio is DENIED and Defendant's Cross-Motion for a Protective Order is GRANTED. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Magistrate Judge Katharine H. Parker on 9/12/18) (yv)
July 18, 2018 Opinion or Order Filing 491 ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION: for 430 Report and Recommendation. The Court has reviewed Magistrate Judge Katharine H. Parker's May 30, 2018 Report and Recommendation (the "Report") (docket entry no. 430) which recommend s that plaintiff Tracey Stewart be dismissed for failure to prosecute. No objections to the Report have been received. In reviewing a report and recommendation, a district court "may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings o r recommendations made by the magistrate [judge]." 28 U.S.C.A. § 636(b)(1)(C) (LexisNexis 2017). "In a case such as this one, where no timely objection has been made, a district court need only satisfy itself that there is no clear err or on the face of the record." Johnson v. New York University School of Education, No. 00 Civ. 8117, at *1, 2003 WL 21433443 (S.D.N.Y. June 16, 2003). The Court has reviewed carefully Magistrate Judge Parker's thorough and well reasoned Rep ort and finds no clear error. The Court therefore adopts the Report in its entirety for the reasons stated therein. Accordingly, Stewart is dismissed from this action and the Clerk of Court is directed to amend the caption accordingly. This Order resolves docket entry no. 381. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Laura Taylor Swain on 7/18/2018). *** Party Tracey Stewart terminated. (ama) Modified on 7/18/2018 (ama).
May 18, 2018 Opinion or Order Filing 408 OPINION AND ORDER. Plaintiffs' motion to compel certain data production is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Magistrate Judge Katharine H. Parker on 5/18/18) (yv)
May 10, 2018 Opinion or Order Filing 393 OPINION AND ORDER. Plaintiffs' request for a compelled "quick peek" procedure is DENIED. Plaintiffs' motion is DENIED. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Magistrate Judge Katharine H. Parker on 5/10/18) (yv)
February 12, 2018 Opinion or Order Filing 268 OPINION AND ORDER. Plaintiffs' motion to compel is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part, and the City's motion for a protective order is GRANTED. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Magistrate Judge Katharine H. Parker on 2/12/18) (yv)
February 1, 2018 Opinion or Order Filing 259 OPINION AND ORDER. Plaintiffs' objections to the City's clawback demand are DENIED; Plaintiffs' objections to the City's privilege log are GRANTED in part and DENIED in part; and the City's assertions of privilege during de positions are SUSTAINED in part and OVERRULED in part. The City is directed to produce the documents Bates-stamped NYC _0067301, NYCPRIV01218, NYCPRIV01728, NYCPRIV00090, NYCPRIV02127, NYCPRIV01387, NYCPRIV01840, and NYCPRIV02361, as well as redacted copies of the documents Bates-stamped NYCPRIV00548, NYC_0056994, NYCPRIV00399, and NYCPRIV00726 in accordance with this opinion. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Magistrate Judge Katharine H. Parker on 2/1/18) (yv)
November 27, 2017 Opinion or Order Filing 217 OPINION & ORDER re: 209 LETTER MOTION for Discovery compliance with local rules addressed to Magistrate Judge Katharine H. Parker from Melanie V. Sadok dated November 13, 2017. filed by City of New York. Plaintiffs request (Doc. No. 208) is granted in part and denied in part. The Citys request for the Court to disregard Plaintiffs application (Doc. No. 209) is denied as moot. The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to terminate the gavel pending in connection with Doc. No. 209. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Magistrate Judge Katharine H. Parker on 11/27/17) (yv)
July 5, 2017 Opinion or Order Filing 148 OPINION AND ORDER re: 136 LETTER MOTION for Discovery regarding plaintiffs' oral request to post on ECF a preliminary expert report based on confidential data addressed to Magistrate Judge Katharine H. Parker from William H. Vidal dated June 12, 2017. filed by City of New York. Plaintiffs' request is denied. It is premature at this stage of the litigation to lift the Protective Order as to the preliminary expert report. See In re Terrorist Attacks on Sept. 11, 2001, 45 4 F. Supp. 2d at 222 (a "court may impose an initial protective order based upon a general showing of good cause, and may modify that order at a later time if more specific grounds for its continuance remain indiscernible"). If and when final expert reports may need to be filed with the Court, the parties can address whether the Protective Order should be lifted and the reports publicly filed. In the meantime, analyses of the confidential affordable housing lottery data will remain subject to the Protective Order. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Magistrate Judge Katharine H. Parker on 7/5/17) (yv)
October 24, 2016 Opinion or Order Filing 42 MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER re: 17 MOTION to Dismiss First Amended Complaint. filed by City of New York. Defendants motion to dismiss the FAC is denied. The next pre-trial conference is scheduled for December 2, 2016, at 10:30 a.m . The parties must confer and prepare submissions in accordance with the initial conference order (docket entry no. 9) prior to the conference. This Memorandum Opinion and Order resolves docket entry number 17. (Signed by Judge Laura Taylor Swain on 10/24/2016) (kgo)
Access additional case information on PACER

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 Southern District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: Winfield et al v. City Of New York
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Plaintiff: Janell Winfield
Represented By: Craig Gurian
Represented By: Eric J. Hecker
Represented By: Mariann Meier Wang
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Plaintiff: Tracey Stewart
Represented By: Craig Gurian
Represented By: Eric J. Hecker
Represented By: Mariann Meier Wang
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Plaintiff: Shauna Noel
Represented By: Craig Gurian
Represented By: Eric J. Hecker
Represented By: Mariann Meier Wang
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Defendant: City of New York
Represented By: Jasmine M. Georges
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]

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?