Matches in SCALES for { <http://schemas.scales-okn.org/rdf/scales#/DocketEntry/nyed;;1:16-cv-01294_de41> ?p ?o ?g. }
Showing items 1 to 4 of
4
with 100 items per page.
- nyed;;1:16-cv-01294_de41 RegisterActionDate "2017-10-21" @default.
- nyed;;1:16-cv-01294_de41 RegisterActionDescriptionText "ORDER By letter motion dated 10/12/17, plaintiffs request leave to reopen discovery to take the deposition of the ADA who, the day after the incident underlying this case, interviewed two nonparty witnesses who were present at the scene at the time of the incident and thereafter declined to prosecute. Plaintiffs state that their late request results from defendants' own lateness in producing a "declined prosecution form" which memorialized these interviews. Defendants concede that they did not produce the form until 8/28/17, three (3) days before the close of discovery, but object to the deposition as both untimely and irrelevant. They argue that plaintiffs waited six (6) weeks after receiving the form before requesting the deposition and, in any event, was not at the scene at the time of the incident. Thus, they contend, any information he obtained from interviews with the witnesses the following day would have no bearing on probable cause to arrest plaintiffs, as that determination turns on the information known to defendants at the time of plaintiffs' arrests. The court disagrees. As to the relevance of the prosecutor's interviews, plaintiff is entitled to question the ADA as to whether, for example, the witnesses said, did, knew of, or communicated to defendants prior to plaintiffs' arrests anything that could have affected the determination of probable cause. That the request for the deposition comes after the close of fact discovery is not fatal to plaintiffs' request, as the memo was produced too late to notice the deposition during the discovery period, and the delay in requesting the deposition was relatively brief. Although delay is never ideal, justice is best served when cases are decided on the merits after relevant evidence is reasonably explored. As an aside, it appears that plaintiffs are not the only parties to seek relief after a deadline has passed. If the court is not mistaken, defendants' pre-motion conference letter was filed on 10/6/17, some three weeks after the 9/15/17 deadline set at a status conference on 7/14/17. Here again, the delay was minimal, and the pre-motion conference request was granted.. Ordered by Magistrate Judge Robert M. Levy on 10/21/2017. (Levy, Robert) (Entered: 10/21/2017)" @default.
- nyed;;1:16-cv-01294_de41 AdministrativeID "None" @default.
- nyed;;1:16-cv-01294_de41 OntologyLabel order @default.