K.S. v. City of New York

Background

The cases involve claims by K.S. and other Plaintiffs against the City of New York and other Defendants. The order concerns discovery disputes involving the Foster Care Defendants (FCDs), whose witnesses Plaintiffs questioned under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30(b)(6). That rule allows a party to require an organization to designate witnesses to testify about information known or reasonably available to the organization.

Plaintiffs served a revised deposition notice identifying 29 topics, some with numerous subtopics. They argued that the FCDs failed to provide witnesses who knew enough about several subjects and that Plaintiffs’ counsel ran out of time to ask about other subjects. The FCDs opposed reopening the depositions and stated that they had produced five witnesses—Shanna Gonzalez, Rosalyn Chernofsky, Dawn Saffayeh, Jimmy Ponce, and Lydia King—who were the people under their control with the most knowledge of the listed topics and who had reviewed hundreds of documents.

The parties were generally required to complete fact discovery by December 20, 2024. The court had granted limited extensions for certain document production and for depositions of one foster parent and the Administration for Children’s Services Rule 30(b)(6) witnesses. The court reviewed five FCD deposition transcripts totaling more than 1,000 pages.

Legal standard

A Rule 30(b)(6) organization must make a good-faith effort to designate people familiar with the matters listed in the deposition notice and prepare them to provide complete and knowledgeable answers. The organization must use information reasonably available from documents, former employees, or other sources. But a witness is not expected to know every detail, and deposition topics must be relevant, reasonably particular, proportional to the needs of the case, and not unduly burdensome or duplicative.

Court’s analysis

For Topics 14–18 and 21–26 concerning D.S. and R.C. before 2015, the court found that the FCDs did not have the information, could not reasonably obtain it from other sources, and still lacked sufficient knowledge after reviewing the available information. The court concluded that the FCDs’ Rule 30(b)(6) obligations therefore ended for those subjects, so Plaintiffs were not entitled to additional questioning about them.

For Topics 1, 28, and 29, concerning document-retention policies and procedures, the court found that the FCDs had satisfied their obligations. Although one witness lacked knowledge about some hard-copy documents, another testified about documents saved on a hard drive, and Lydia King testified about hard-copy documentation practices during the relevant period.

For Topics 2 and 3, involving contracts for D.S.’s foster-care services in 2014 and the organizational structure of employees responsible for his care before January 2015, the court again found that the FCDs appeared not to possess the information, could not obtain it from other sources, and could not provide a knowledgeable witness after reviewing the available information. The court held that the FCDs had no further obligations on those topics.

For Topics 4–7 and 9, involving foster-care policies, procedures, monitoring, and audits, the court found that Plaintiffs sought a level of detail that a Rule 30(b)(6) witness could not reasonably be expected to provide. The court concluded that any deficiencies were limited and not serious or widespread enough to justify reopening the depositions. It found that the FCD witnesses were sufficiently familiar with the subjects, had relevant personal knowledge, and had prepared by reviewing documents and receiving information from counsel or colleagues.

Finally, Plaintiffs argued that their counsel had been unable to finish questioning about various quality-assurance standards, D.S.-specific policies and training, audits, data collection, staff turnover, and records. The court characterized this request as an attempt to obtain another extension of the fact-discovery deadline, which had already expired and for which the court had stated that no further extensions would be granted. The court also found that Plaintiffs had not shown that the FCDs inadequately prepared their witnesses or interfered with the questioning, and that dissatisfaction with the witnesses’ answers was not a basis for reopening the depositions.

Disposition

Magistrate Judge Sarah L. Cave denied Plaintiffs’ request for additional time to depose the FCDs’ Rule 30(b)(6) witnesses regarding the listed topics. The order applied to both captioned actions and was entered pursuant to an order of reference from Judge Jed S. Rakoff.