Hicks v. Chavez

Background

Darnell R. Hicks, proceeding without a lawyer, submitted a letter requesting several forms of relief, including an investigation into Det. Chavez, an order requiring the Ossining Police Department to release camera footage, and exclusion of certain photographic evidence. Discovery had closed on August 15, 2024. During a September 11, 2024 conference, the court confirmed with the parties that discovery was complete. Defendants opposed Hicks’s requests, arguing that discovery had ended, neither party had objected to its completion, and the requested documents had already been produced. Defendants also stated that they had filed a motion for summary judgment and that Hicks had not timely responded.

Motion to Reopen Discovery

The court liberally construed Hicks’s letter as including a motion to reopen discovery. Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16(b)(4), a scheduling order may be changed only for good cause and with the judge’s consent. Courts consider whether the party seeking additional discovery had an adequate opportunity to conduct discovery, whether the party acted diligently, whether the request is opposed, whether reopening discovery would prejudice the other side, and whether the additional discovery is likely to produce relevant evidence.

The court found that Hicks had not shown good cause. The case had been filed on September 12, 2023, giving him nearly eleven months to conduct discovery before the deadline. He did not raise the camera-footage issue during the September 11 conference, when the only outstanding discovery issue discussed was Defendants’ assertion that they had not received certain medical authorizations and social-media videos from Hicks. Hicks also did not explain why he had failed to pursue the requested discovery earlier.

The court further found that reopening discovery could delay the case and prejudice Defendants because summary-judgment proceedings were already underway. Defendants had filed their motion on October 30, 2024, and the briefing schedule had set deadlines for Hicks’s opposition and Defendants’ reply. The court therefore DENIED Hicks’s construed motion to reopen discovery.

Request to Exclude or Seal Evidence

Hicks asked the court to exclude photographs or images that he said were taken to humiliate and degrade him. The court said it was unclear whether he sought to exclude the photographs at a future hearing or trial, exclude them from consideration on summary judgment, or have them filed under seal.

To the extent Hicks sought exclusion at a later hearing or trial, the court denied the request as premature, without prejudice to renewal before the district judge. To the extent he sought to prevent consideration of the photographs on summary judgment, the court said he had not provided a legitimate basis for that request. The court noted that the photographs appeared to include images referenced in Hicks’s complaint and explained that the district judge would decide what materials to consider in connection with summary judgment.

The court also treated Hicks’s request to prevent public disclosure of the images on the docket as a motion to seal. Judicial filings relevant to the court’s work generally carry a presumption of public access. Because the exhibits were filed with Defendants’ summary-judgment motion, the court applied a higher presumption of public access than would apply to materials filed only in a discovery dispute. Hicks did not explain why sealing was necessary to protect an important interest or why sealing would be narrowly tailored. The court also noted that embarrassment or negative publicity generally does not overcome the presumption of public access. The court therefore DENIED Hicks’s construed request for Defendants to file the exhibits under seal.

Disposition

The Clerk of Court was directed to terminate the motion at ECF No. 47. The opinion was issued and signed by Victoria Reznik, United States Magistrate Judge.