Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Bianco v. County of Nassau

United States District Court, E.D. New York

May 12, 2017

ANGELA S. BIANCO, Plaintiffs,
v.
COUNTY OF NASSAU, NASSAU COUNTY POLICE DEPARTMENT, DETECTIVE GENNARO DESTEFANO, LIEUTENANT VINCENT G. BODEN, NASSAU COUNTY POLICE DEPARTMENT JOHN AND JANE DOES 1-10 Defendants.

          ORDER

          ANNE Y. SHIELDS United States Magistrate Judge.

         Presently before the Court is a letter by Plaintiff in response to this Court's Order dated May 8, 2017 (the “May 8 Order”). Docket Entry (“DE”) 34. Plaintiff has categorized the letter as a reply to Defendant's opposition to her letter motion for discovery. As this Court had already denied the motion, the Court construes Plaintiff's letter as a motion seeking reconsideration of the Court's May 8 Order. For the reasons set forth below, the motion is denied.

         BACKGROUND

         I. The Parties and Plaintiff's Claims

         Plaintiff Angela S. Bianco (“Plaintiff”) commenced this action on January 27, 2016, asserting claims pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1988, the Fourth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution, Due Process, and the Constitution and laws of the State of New York. DE 1. Named as Defendants are the County of Nassau, (“Nassau County”), the Nassau County Police Department, Detective Gennaro DeStefano, Lieutenant Vincent G. Boden, and John and Jane Does 1-10. DE 1. Plaintiff claims, inter alia, that she was falsely arrested and imprisoned. DE 1.

         II. Prior Proceedings

         A. Proceedings While Plaintiff Was Represented by Counsel

         An initial conference was held before the District Court on March 31, 2016. At that conference the District Court scheduled a settlement conference for May 10, 2016. DE 12. After holding that conference, the District court scheduled a second settlement conference for June 15, 2016, and a third such conference for July 20, 2016. DE 13; 14. When the case did not settle the case was referred to this Court to enter a discovery schedule.

         This Court held an initial discovery conference on August 24, 2016. In an order dated August 24, 2016, this Court entered a detailed discovery schedule directing, inter alia, that Plaintiff provide information as to her damages claims, and that the depositions of the Plaintiff and the two arresting officers be taken by October 24, 2016. DE 18. Counsel were direct to submit a joint status letter to this Court on October 31, 2016. Id. In a letter dated October 21, 2016, counsel for both parties requested to extend the time for the taking of the aforementioned depositions to November 11, 2016 and to end the time to submit a status letter to November 25, 2016. DE 20. This Court granted that request in an order dated October 26, 2016. See Electronic Order dated October 26, 2016. That order also extended the time in which to file a joint status letter to November 25, 2016. Id.

         B. Proceedings Following Withdrawal of Plaintiff's Counsel

         On November 4, 2016, Plaintiff's counsel moved to withdraw from his representation of Plaintiff. DE 21. The District Court granted the motion, and stayed discovery for a period of thirty days in which to give Plaintiff an opportunity to obtain new counsel. See Order dated November 14, 2017. On December 9, 2017, Plaintiff requested an additional sixty days in which “to either remove [herself] form the lawsuit or attain a new attorney.” DE 22. On February 16, 2017, the District Court scheduled an in-person status conference for February 23, 2017. See Scheduling Order dated February 16, 2017. In a fax sent from Plaintiff to this Court's pro se office on that same date, Plaintiff asked that her contact information be updated to reflect her address, telephone number and email address. DE 23.

         The District Court held the scheduled status conference on February 23, 2017, at which time it scheduled a further conference for May 23, 2016. See Minute Order dated February 23, 2017, DE 25. That Court informed Plaintiff that if she was going to be represented, counsel must appear at the May conference. On March 20, 2017, Plaintiff filed a request for an extension of time to the discovery plan and/or a status conference. DE 26. On March 23, 2017, the District Court held a status conference, at which time it was determined that Plaintiff will be proceeding pro se. DE 27. The Court further referred discovery to this Court. Id. On that same date, this Court issued an order scheduling in person discovery conference on April 26, 2017. See Electronic Order dated Mach 23, 2017.

         On April 26, 2017, this Court held a status conference. DE 31. During the conference, this Court advised Plaintiff that she must familiarize herself with the Federal and Local Rules. The Court further directed Plaintiff to inform Defendant if she is claiming medical damages, and if so, to provide Defendant with appropriate authorizations by May 3, 2017. Defendant was informed that by May 3, 2017, it must email names of all officers who were at Plaintiff's house when she was arrested. During the conference, the parties conferred and presented this Court with a proposed discovery schedule, which was so ordered. DE 30. That schedule outlines the dates when all phases of discovery must be complete. Specifically, and relevant to the Plaintiff's motion, the schedule sets the date for completion of initial ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.