Williams v. NYC Board of Elections
- Katharine Parker
- 1:23-cv-05460
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 5
In Williams v. NYC Board of Elections, Judge Parker partially granted and partially denied Williams’s request to reopen discovery, ordering limited electronic production and related filings.
Carman Williams and the defendants, including the NYC Board of Elections and other named defendants, were affected by the discovery deadlines and requirements.
What happened
In Carman Williams v. NYC Board of Elections, et al., Williams asked to reopen discovery so she could seek responses to written questions and document requests, obtain electronic information, and investigate whether Donna Ellaby’s records had been searched.
The court granted in part and denied in part the request. It ordered the defendants to reproduce previously produced emails electronically with metadata showing any blind-copy recipients, explain whether they searched Ellaby’s records, and provide the court with their privilege log. The court also allowed Williams to file a limited motion to compel responses to certain written questions served before May 13, 2024. It denied reopening discovery for additional document requests and broader written questions.
Judge Katharine H. Parker issued the discovery order on June 20, 2024. The defendants’ required submissions were due June 28, 2024, and Williams’s limited motion to compel was due July 3, 2024.
The detailed version
- Williams v. NYC Board of Elections · No. 1:23-cv-05460
- Katharine Parker
- June 20, 2024
Background
Carman Williams asked the court to reopen discovery after the discovery period had closed. She sought to prepare a motion to compel— a request for an order requiring discovery responses—concerning unspecified written questions and document requests served after her first motion to compel. She also sought additional electronic discovery, including information showing whether produced emails had blind-copy recipients, and asked that the defendants search Donna Ellaby’s electronic records.
Legal standard
The court explained that discovery generally covers nonprivileged information relevant to a claim or defense and proportional to the case’s needs. The court may limit discovery that is cumulative, duplicative, disproportionate, or burdensome. Reopening discovery after the deadline requires good cause, meaning a sufficient reason for changing the discovery schedule.
Rulings
The court found that Williams had not shown good cause to reopen discovery except to a very limited extent.
The court granted the request to reopen discovery for the defendants to reproduce the emails previously provided to Williams in electronic format on a mailed thumb drive. The electronic files had to include metadata showing any blind-copy recipients. The deadline was June 28, 2024.
The court denied the request to reopen discovery for additional document requests because it had already ruled that Williams could not serve additional document requests and written questions as disproportionate to the needs of the case. The court also stated that it was unclear which written questions Williams meant. Even so, it permitted her to file by July 3, 2024, a motion to compel responses to specific written questions served before May 13, 2024, provided those questions did not concern topics the court had already found overbroad and disproportionate. Any motion had to include the specific questions and the defendants’ answers. The defendants received 14 days to respond, and no reply was permitted.
Regarding Ellaby, the court noted that the defendants had represented that they produced all documents required by an earlier order and provided a list of people whose records were searched. The court required the defendants to state by June 28, 2024, whether they searched for documents from Ellaby responsive to Williams’s narrowed document requests and, if not, why not. The court said it would decide after receiving that response whether to reopen discovery for relevant information from Ellaby.
The court also required the defendants to provide it with a copy of the privilege log they had served on Williams by June 28, 2024. A privilege log identifies documents withheld from discovery based on claims such as attorney-client privilege.
Disposition
Williams’s motion to reopen discovery was granted in part and denied in part. The order addressed discovery management and did not decide the underlying claims.
Read the full 5-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.