Guerrero v. Albany Med Health System

- 1 -
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
DENISE GUERRERO,
Plaintiff,
1:24-CV-1344
v. 	(MAD/DJS)
ALBANY MED HEALTH SYSTEM,
Defendant.
APPEARANCES: 	OF COUNSEL:
DENISE GUERRERO
Plaintiff, Pro Se
East Nassau, NY 12062
BOND, SCHOENECK & KING, PLLC 	ROBERT F. MANFREDO, ESQ.
Attorneys for Defendant 	NATALIE C. VOGEL, ESQ.
22 Corporate Woods Blvd., Suite 501
Albany, NY 12211
DANIEL J. STEWART
United States Magistrate Judge
MEMORANDUM-DECISION and ORDER
Presently before the Court is a Motion to Compel Discovery (the “Motion”) made
by pro se Plaintiff Denise Guerrero (“Plaintiff”). Dkt. Nos. 61 & 68. Defendant Albany
Med Health System (“Defendant”) opposes the Motion. Dkt. No. 66. On April 22, 2026,
the Court held a discovery hearing with the parties to discuss the issues raised in the
Motion. Dkt. No. 64. For the reasons set forth during the hearing, Plaintiff’s Motion is
DENIED. A summary of the holdings made by the Court is as follows.
Case 1:24-cv-01344-MAD-DJS Document 69 Filed 04/27/26 Page 1 of 5

- 2 -
On November 5, 2024, Plaintiff commenced this action against her former
employer alleging, among other things, violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act
of 1990 (the “ADA”). 	Dkt. No. 1. 	At Plaintiff’s request and with the District Court’s
permission, Dkt. Nos. 16-17 & 20-21, Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint on February
10, 2025, Dkt. No. 19, and a Second Amended Complaint on February 25, 2025. 	Dkt.
No. 25. Pursuant to the District Court’s decision on Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss the
Second Amended Complaint, the only remaining claim is Plaintiff’s ADA retaliation
claim relating to Plaintiff’s request for an accommodation. 	Dkt. No. 37. 	The District
Court expressly dismissed, among other causes of action, Plaintiff’s ADA claim for
failure to accommodate, id. at pp. 13-16, as well as her ADA retaliation claim relating to
Plaintiff’s complaint that Margaret Warner (“Warner”) 1 yelled at Plaintiff and behaved
aggressively on multiple occasions. Id. at pp. 23-24. This Court later denied Plaintiff’s
Motion for Leave to Amend the Second Amended Complaint and to File a Third
Amended Complaint and, in doing so, explained that it would be futile to allow Plaintiff
to revive claims dismissed by the District Court relating to conduct by Warner and to add
Warner as a Defendant to this action. Dkt. No. 65 at pp. 5-8.
At issue here are Defendant’s responses to four discovery demands made by
Plaintiff—namely, Interrogatory No. 5 and Requests for Production Nos. 3, 5, and 9. See
generally Dkt. Nos. 61, 66, & 68. 	Interrogatory No. 5 seeks comparator information
1 Plaintiff refers to her supervisor as “Margaret Warner.” See, e.g., Dkt. No. 25 at p. 2; Dkt. No. 61 at p. 3. In
Defendant’s opposition papers, Defendant states that Margaret’s last name has now changed from “Warner” to
“Millington.” See Dkt. No. 66 at pp. 5-6. For purposes of this Motion, and consistent with its past decisions, the
Court will refer to said individual as “Warner” herein.
Case 1:24-cv-01344-MAD-DJS Document 69 Filed 04/27/26 Page 2 of 5

- 3 -
regarding the manner in which Defendant addressed other employees’ accommodation
requests. 	Dkt. No. 66-2 at p. 2. 	Request for Production No. 3 seeks documentation
regarding 	the 	manner 	in 	which 	Defendant 	handled 	and 	processed 	Plaintiff’s
accommodation request. Id. at p. 4. Request for Production No. 5 seeks complaints filed
related to Warner. Id. Finally, Request for Production No. 9 seeks Defendant’s training
materials regarding ADA compliance. Id. at p. 5.
Interrogatory No. 5 and Requests for Production Nos. 5 and 9 seek information
that has no bearing on and is “not relevant to the surviving claim” in this case, Deng v.
New York State Off. of Mental Health, 2015 WL 9450845, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 23, 2015),
which is for retaliation based on Plaintiff’s request for an accommodation. See supra at
p. 2. 	Instead, these demands seek the production of information that would only be
relevant, if at all, to Plaintiff’s prior claims for failure to accommodate and for retaliation
based on the human resources complaint that Plaintiff made against Warner, both of
which the District Court “already dismissed as a matter of law.” Deng v. New York State
Off. of Mental Health, 2015 WL 9450845, at *2; see supra at p. 2. 	Consequently, they
are not the proper subject for discovery in this case. Jackson v. Bank of Am., N.A., 2018
WL 3386336, at *3 (W.D.N.Y. July 12, 2018) (finding “improper” plaintiff’s “mo[tion]
to compel discovery relevant only to claims which are not before the [c]ourt . . . because
they were already dismissed”).
Insofar as Plaintiff argues that any of these demands were made to determine what
process Defendant has for handling accommodation requests, Defendant provided
Case 1:24-cv-01344-MAD-DJS Document 69 Filed 04/27/26 Page 3 of 5

- 4 -
Plaintiff with a copy of Defendant’s policy for handling accommodation requests, Dkt.
No. 66 at p. 10 (citing Dkt. No. 66-9), and the Court finds that to be sufficient at this time.
As for Request for Production No. 3, Plaintiff asserts that an “inconsistency” exists
because “Defendant initially represented that no additional responsive documents exist,”
but “within 	the same 	correspondence . . . indicated [Defendant] 	would conduct 	an
additional search for responsive materials.” Dkt. No. 61 at p. 2. Defendant responds that
“Defendant produced documents it located that were responsive to this demand,”
repeatedly conducted additional searches in response to Plaintiff’s renewed requests and
advised Plaintiff that “[n]o further responsive documents were identified,” and “provided
Plaintiff with all requested information” when “Plaintiff . . . sought further clarification
on several items.” Dkt. No. 66 at pp. 5-6.
The Court will not order “a party to produce that which does not exist,” particularly
where, 	as 	here, 	Plaintiff 	has 	not 	provided 	any 	“evidence 	of 	[D]efendant
withholding . . . relevant documents it possesses” in response to Request for Production
No. 3. 	OnActuate Consulting, Inc. v. Aeon Nexus Corp., 2023 WL 5097912, at *8
(N.D.N.Y. Aug. 9, 2023) (quotation, internal quotation marks, and citations omitted).
Nonetheless, on or before May 6, 2026, Defendant is directed to provide further
information to Plaintiff, by email or other written form, regarding the steps taken by
Defendant to search for documents responsive to Request for Production No. 3, including
the custodians and locations searched. 	See, e.g., Tromblee v. New York, 2022 WL
2818222, at *16 (N.D.N.Y. July 19, 2022); Robert F. Kennedy Hum. Rts. v. U.S. Immigr.
& Customs Enf’t, 2023 WL 3075955, at *2 (W.D.N.Y. Apr. 25, 2023). The Court also
Case 1:24-cv-01344-MAD-DJS Document 69 Filed 04/27/26 Page 4 of 5

- 5 -
reminds the parties of their continuing obligation, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 26(e)(1)(A), to supplement their productions should responsive documents be
located at a later time.
As a final matter, the Court grants the parties’ request to extend the discovery
deadline from June 15, 2026, to October 30, 2026 and the dispositive motion deadline is
extended to December 30, 2026.
ACCORDINGLY, for the reasons stated herein, it is hereby
ORDERED, that Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Discovery (Dkt. No. 61) is
DENIED as set forth above; and it is further
ORDERED, 	that 	the 	parties’ 	request 	to 	extend 	the 	discovery 	deadline 	is
GRANTED, and that deadline is now set for October 30, 2026; and it is further
ORDERED, that Plaintiff’s letter request (Dkt. No 62) is DENIED as moot; and
it is further
ORDERED, that the Clerk of the Court serve a copy of this Memorandum-
Decision and Order upon the parties to this action.
Dated: 	April 27, 2026
Albany, New York
Case 1:24-cv-01344-MAD-DJS Document 69 Filed 04/27/26 Page 5 of 5