Minto v. 165 Cafe Corp.
- Cathy Seibel
- 7:23-cv-10735
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Minto v. 165 Cafe Corp., Judge Reznik ordered defendants to submit disputed videos for court review before a settlement conference.
Kemar Minto and the defendants, 165 Café Corp. and Brian Mahon, were affected by the order concerning production of disputed video footage for court review.
What happened
In Minto v. 165 Cafe Corp., Kemar Minto asked the court to require 165 Café Corp. and Brian Mahon to provide video footage requested during discovery. Minto’s claims involve allegations that he was asked to leave the defendants’ restaurant because of his race.
Minto said the defendants relied on mistaken identity, claiming they confused him with another Black man who allegedly committed credit-card fraud at the restaurant. He sought video of that alleged fraud and video showing his interactions with the defendants and their employees on March 11, 2023. The defendants objected to producing the footage, citing a concern that disclosure could allow testimony to be tailored.
Before the January 30, 2025 settlement conference, Judge Victoria Reznik directed the defendants to respond to Minto’s letter and provide the requested videos to the court for private review by 10:00 a.m. on January 30. The order also said the defendants should be prepared to provide the videos to Minto immediately if the court ordered them to do so.
The detailed version
- Minto v. 165 Cafe Corp. · No. 7:23-cv-10735
- Cathy Seibel
- Jan. 29, 2025
Background
Kemar Minto’s letter asked the court to resolve a discovery dispute involving video footage. Minto said he had requested two categories of recordings: (1) footage of the person whom the defendants identified as the alleged credit-card fraudster, or confirmation that no such footage exists; and (2) footage of Minto’s interactions with the defendants and their employees at the restaurant on March 11, 2023.
The letter states that Minto’s claims concern race discrimination after he was asked to leave the defendants’ restaurant based on his race. According to the letter, the defendants asserted that their conduct resulted from mistaken identity: they allegedly confused Minto with another Black man who committed credit-card fraud at the restaurant. Minto said the defendants claimed that, after reviewing video of the alleged fraud, they realized Minto was not that person. Minto argued that the footage was important to both the claims and defenses, including whether the mistaken-identity explanation was supported.
Minto’s counsel said the defendants objected to producing the footage and had not confirmed whether the alleged-fraud footage existed. The defendants relied on a prior decision concerning the risk that a witness might tailor testimony after seeing evidence. Minto argued that this concern was speculative and that withholding the recordings impaired his preparation for depositions and the settlement conference scheduled for January 30, 2025.
Court’s Action
In preparation for the settlement conference, Judge Victoria Reznik directed the defendants to respond to Minto’s letter and produce the requested video footage to the court for private judicial review, known as an in-camera review, by 10:00 a.m. on January 30, 2025. The order stated that the defendants should be prepared to produce the footage to Minto immediately if the court ordered them to do so before the settlement conference at 2:30 p.m.
The text provided does not state that the court finally decided whether the defendants had to give the videos directly to Minto, and it does not state whether the court ultimately found that the footage existed or was discoverable.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.