Jennings v. City of New York

Background

The parties submitted a joint letter concerning fact discovery and anticipated dispositive motions. Fact discovery had closed on December 16, 2024, except for depositions of defendants’ witnesses designated under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30(b)(6). The parties identified three unresolved disputes.

Discovery disputes

First, defendants had refused to search for and produce documents that their Rule 30(b)(6) witnesses identified or discussed during depositions. Defendants argued that an earlier order extending the discovery deadline allowed only the depositions themselves and did not allow later document requests. The court rejected that timeliness objection. It reasoned that plaintiff’s counsel could not have requested the specific documents before learning about them during the depositions, and that requests made during the depositions were proper. The court required the parties to continue meeting and conferring to narrow the requests and enable defendants to promptly search for and produce the documents, to the extent they exist. The court also noted that it doubted every document referenced by a witness was essential to plaintiff’s claims.

Second, plaintiff complained that defendants’ counsel directed a Rule 30(b)(6) witness not to answer a question based on attorney-client privilege. The court stated that privilege objections are legally available, but defendants bear the burden of showing that the privilege applies. Because the parties did not provide the relevant testimony, the court encouraged further discussions and stated that it was unlikely to order the deposition reopened merely to ask one question.

Third, plaintiff challenged the knowledge and preparation of Assistant Commissioner Graham-DeCaul, a Rule 30(b)(6) witness. The court explained that such a witness need not have personal knowledge of the matters listed in the deposition notice, but must prepare and inform herself sufficiently to provide knowledgeable answers. Without the transcript, the court could not reach a definitive conclusion. It stated that, if the testimony was comprehensive and knowledgeable, it was unlikely to order the deposition reopened.

Briefing schedule and disposition

The court set deadlines for defendants’ anticipated motion for summary judgment: April 16, 2025, for the motion; April 30, 2025, for plaintiff’s opposition; and May 7, 2025, for defendants’ reply. It also directed the parties to continue meeting and conferring about the discovery issues and to file a joint status letter of no more than four pages by January 30, 2025.

This was a discovery and case-management order. It required further action regarding the document requests, but it did not decide the underlying claims or definitively resolve the privilege and witness-preparedness disputes.