Colson v. Mingo
- Clarke
- 1:18-cv-02765
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Colson v. Mingo, Judge Clarke resolved discovery disputes by binding defendants to signed interrogatory answers.
The defendants, including the individual defendants and the City of New York, are bound by the interrogatory answers and may not contradict them at trial. The parties may also have remaining disputes addressed at the final pretrial conference.
What happened
In Colson v. Mingo, the court reviewed remaining disagreements about discovery, including the date of Captain Ross’s testimony, proposed agreements between the parties, and signatures on interrogatory answers.
The court said it would address any remaining issues about Captain Ross’s testimony and proposed agreements at the final pretrial conference. It also ruled that Corporation Counsel’s signature satisfied the rules for the interrogatory answers, so individual defendants did not have to sign them separately.
Judge Jessica G. L. Clarke further ruled that the answers were binding on all defendants because they were submitted on behalf of the individual defendants. No defendant may contradict those answers at trial.
The detailed version
- Colson v. Mingo · No. 1:18-cv-02765
- Clarke
- Jan. 28, 2025
Background
The court reviewed a submission about remaining discovery disputes. The disputes concerned three subjects: the date of Captain Ross’s testimony, proposed stipulations (agreements about facts or issues), and signatures on interrogatory responses. Interrogatories are written questions that a party must answer during discovery.
Court’s Analysis
The court said that, if any issues remained about Captain Ross’s testimony, it would address them at the final pretrial conference. The court also declined to require the parties to enter into any stipulations. If disagreements about stipulations remained after the parties submitted their pretrial materials, the court would address those disagreements at the same conference.
Regarding the interrogatory responses, the court applied Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 33(b)(5), which requires the person who made the answers to sign them. The court concluded that defendants had complied because Corporation Counsel signed the answers. Relying in part on the rule allowing an attorney for a corporation to answer and verify interrogatories, the court stated that the rule did not require each individual defendant to verify the responses separately.
The court noted that the responses were based on collective information from all defendants and on information and documents in the Department of Correction’s possession. Because Corporation Counsel’s signature verified that the responses were submitted on behalf of all defendants, the responses were binding on every defendant. The court therefore would not require each individual defendant to review and verify the answers, but no defendant would be allowed to contradict the interrogatory answers at trial.
Ruling
Judge Jessica G. L. Clarke deferred any remaining testimony-date and stipulation disputes to the final pretrial conference, declined to mandate stipulations, and ruled that Corporation Counsel’s signatures sufficiently verified the interrogatory responses. The responses bind all defendants at trial.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.