The following e-filed documents, listed by NYSCEF document number (Motion 004) 137, 138, 139, 140, 141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148, 149, 150, 151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158, 159, 160, 161, 162, 163 were read on this motion for DISCOVERY. In this wrongful-death action arising from a 2011 murder, plaintiff, Lucille Collins, seeks an order permitting plaintiff to obtain post-note-of-issue discovery and compelling defendant, the New York City Housing Authority, to provide her that discovery. The motion is denied. BACKGROUND Lucille Collins is the administrator of the estate of her son, Aaron Collins. In 2011, Collins was murdered in the stairwell of an apartment building owned by NYCHA. Plaintiff brought this action in 2012. In 2013, NYCHA brought a third-party action against several individuals who had been arrested for Aaron Collins’s murder. In March 2014, plaintiff served a demand on NYCHA seeking “[a]ny and all reports of documented felony offenses that occurred at this specific housing project two (2) years prior to the date of lo[ss],” and listing seven categories of offenses for which the reports were sought. (NYSCEF No. 143 at 2-3.) NYCHA timely objected to this discovery demand as overbroad and not calculated to lead to admissible evidence. (See NYSCEF No. 143 at 7.) Plaintiff did not move to compel NYCHA to respond to the felony-offenses demand. At the same time, NYCHA moved to stay Collins’s action pending the criminal prosecution of the third-party defendants.1 (See NYSCEF No. 27.) In September 2014, the court (Wooten, J.) granted the motion.2 (See NYSCEF No. 81.) The action remained stayed until April 2018. (See NYSCEF No. 88.) The week after the stay was lifted, plaintiff served another set of document demands. These demands did not pertain to reports of felony offenses in the housing project where Aaron Collins was murdered. Instead, plaintiff sought “[a]ny and all reports, documents, relating to the investigation conducted by the “task force” created by NYCHA to investigate the monitoring systems in New York City Housing Developments.” (NYSCEF No. 99, at 2.) Plaintiff also sought “[a]ny and all reports, documents, and/or records in regards to investigation and implementation of the surveillance system in the Wilson Projects located at 435 East 105th Street, New York, New York.”3 (Id.) NYCHA timely objected to these demands as, among other things, not limited in scope or time. (See NYSCEF No. 100 at 6.) Plaintiff then served a version of the same demands that was limited to documents prepared “within 3 years prior to [the] incident and 1 year after.” (NYSCEF No. 89 at 1.) NYCHA did not respond to these narrowed demands. In October 2019, plaintiff moved to compel a response to her security-cameras demands.4 (See NYSCEF Nos. 97, 98.) This motion did not, however, also seek to compel a response to the felony-offenses demand from 2014, or otherwise rely on or reference that demand. In January 2020, this court granted the security-cameras motion in part and denied in part. (See NYSCEF No. 112.) This court agreed with plaintiff that documents relating to the issue of installing cameras in the housing project were potentially relevant to her claims in the action; but the court also concluded that the demands, as drafted, were vague and overly broad. (See id. at 2.) To enable plaintiff to serve more focused discovery demands relating to the issue of security cameras, this court directed NYCHA to provide plaintiff’s counsel with a list of any NYCHA “reports, memoranda, or similar documents from December 1, 2008, to December 12, 2011″ on ” the general issue of whether (and to what extent) security cameras should be installed in NYCHA-owned apartment buildings,” on “ whether to install security cameras in the Wilson Projects in particular,” and “on the implementation of any camera-installation plan in the Wilson Projects.” (Id. at 2-3.) This court’s order also permitted Collins to serve supplemental document requests within 30 days of receiving NYCHA’s list of documents (if any). (See id. at 3.) On April 30, 2020, NYCHA emailed plaintiff’s counsel several documents — not merely a list of documents — that NYCHA represented were responsive to its production obligation under this court’s January 2020 order.5 (See NYSCEF No. 155; see also NYSCEF No. 148 at
