Richards v. City of New York Comptroller

Background

Alroy D. Richards filed this case against the City of New York, Scott Stringer in his official capacity as City of New York comptroller, and New York Police Department officers J. Pastoriza and D. Saroff. He asserted claims under the Fourth, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments and 18 U.S.C. §§ 241 and 242. After Richards amended his complaint three times, the Court dismissed all claims except one alleging that Officer Saroff conducted a traffic stop without reasonable suspicion.

During discovery, Saroff sought Richards’s traffic file and mental-health treatment records. Richards objected based on relevance and privacy concerns and refused to authorize their release. At a November 2023 conference, Magistrate Judge Willis explained why the records were relevant, ordered tailored releases, and warned Richards that failure to comply could result in sanctions, including dismissal. Judge Willis later ordered Richards to sign the releases, further narrowed them, and provided a protective order intended to address his privacy concerns. Richards continued to refuse, including at an April 3, 2024 discovery conference.

Saroff moved to dismiss under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 37(b) and 41(b). Judge Willis recommended granting the motion. Richards timely objected, but his objections repeated his earlier relevance and privacy arguments and did not specifically challenge the recommendation’s conclusion that dismissal was warranted.

Court’s Analysis

Judge Abrams reviewed the objections for clear error because they were general and repetitive. The Court stated that the result would be the same even under a more searching review.

The Court held that dismissal under Rule 41(b) was warranted based on five factors: Richards failed to comply for approximately eight to ten months; he received multiple warnings that dismissal was possible; his refusal impaired Saroff’s ability to defend the remaining claim; Judge Willis had balanced discovery needs with Richards’s privacy and fair-hearing concerns by narrowing the releases and offering a protective order; and lesser sanctions were unlikely to work because Richards had said he would never provide the releases.

The Court also held that dismissal under Rule 37(b)(2)(A) was warranted because the relevant factors substantially parallel those under Rule 41(b). The Court did not decide whether Saroff’s traffic stop violated the Fourth Amendment.

Disposition

Judge Ronnie Abrams adopted Judge Willis’s Report and Recommendation in its entirety. The Court dismissed the case with prejudice under Rules 37(b) and 41(b), directed the Clerk of Court to terminate pending motions, and closed the case.