Minto v. 165 Cafe Corp.

Background

Kemar Minto filed this action in December 2023. He allegedly was refused service at the Hudson Grille after defendants mistakenly identified him as a person who had used fake credit cards the previous week. The case was referred to Magistrate Judge Victoria Reznik for settlement purposes, and the court scheduled a settlement conference for January 30, 2025.

Before that conference, Minto filed a letter raising a discovery dispute. He said defendants had not produced videos that allegedly showed the incident in which he was refused service and possibly showed the person defendants said they had mistakenly identified as Minto. Minto argued that the videos were important for preparing for depositions and the settlement conference, resolving factual issues, evaluating whether defendants’ actions were justified, and supporting his allegations.

Parties’ Positions and Court Review

Defendants did not dispute that Minto was entitled to the videos as discovery. They argued only that production should be delayed until after Minto’s deposition so the videos would remain useful for testing or impeaching his testimony. The court ordered defendants to submit the videos for private court review. Defendants submitted approximately 29 videos from cameras inside and outside the premises but did not explain what the videos showed or what the court should look for.

Analysis

The court treated Minto’s request as a motion to compel discovery and treated defendants’ request as a request for a protective order. Under the applicable discovery rules, a party seeking to delay disclosure must show good cause, meaning a particular and specific factual basis rather than general or conclusory statements.

The court found that defendants did not show good cause. First, defendants offered only a general assertion that producing the videos before Minto’s deposition might allow him to tailor his testimony. They did not explain specifically how Minto might do so. Second, after reviewing the videos, the court found no obvious discrepancies between their contents and Minto’s allegations. The videos therefore did not provide an independent factual basis for believing that Minto would change his testimony.

Ruling

The court granted Minto’s request to compel defendants to produce the videos and denied defendants’ request to protect the videos from disclosure until after Minto’s deposition. Defendants were directed to produce the videos to Minto within 24 hours after entry of the order. The court stated that it would issue a separate order rescheduling the settlement conference.