Fecteau v. The City of Mount Vernon
- Kenneth Karas
- 7:23-cv-09173
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 13
In Fecteau v. Mount Vernon, Judge McCarthy limited discovery, denied most deposition requests, and allowed seven depositions in Fecteau’s civil-rights case.
Matthew J. Fecteau must limit discovery to his surviving formal-policy municipal-liability claim. He may depose David Gibson, Patrick Holder, Charlene Humphreys, Montika Jones, Dawnette McLaren-Nelson, Sergeant Mario Stewart, and Jamie Pessin, but may not take the other requested depositions or exceed ten depositions.
What happened
Matthew J. Fecteau, representing himself, asked to broaden discovery in his civil-rights lawsuit against the City of Mount Vernon and other defendants. He sought clarification about the claims that remained, depositions of high-ranking officials, permission to take more than ten depositions, and limits on the defendants’ objections to discovery.
The court ruled that discovery must concern Fecteau’s surviving claim based on a formal City policy involving Mount Vernon City Code § 149-42(A). It barred discovery about informal policies, such as failure to train, widespread practices, and failure to screen. The court allowed depositions of David Gibson, Patrick Holder, Charlene Humphreys, Montika Jones, Dawnette McLaren-Nelson, Sergeant Mario Stewart, and Jamie Pessin, but denied the other deposition requests and denied permission to exceed ten depositions.
Judge McCarthy denied Fecteau’s request to clarify discovery as he proposed, denied the requests for additional and high-ranking-official depositions, and denied the request to exceed ten depositions. The court denied without prejudice his request concerning supposed efforts to restrict discovery in advance, meaning that request was not permanently barred by that ruling.
The detailed version
- Fecteau v. The City of Mount Vernon · No. 7:23-cv-09173
- Kenneth Karas
- June 11, 2025
Background
Matthew J. Fecteau, proceeding without a lawyer, brought a civil-rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against the City of Mount Vernon and several individual defendants. He moved to clarify the scope of discovery and obtain permission for additional depositions. The City Defendants opposed the first three requests and did not address his fourth request.
Scope of discovery
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(1) limits discovery to nonprivileged information relevant to a claim or defense and proportional to the needs of the case. The court explained that discovery about claims that had been dismissed is not relevant to the remaining claims.
In an earlier ruling in this case, the court determined that Fecteau plausibly alleged that Mount Vernon City Code § 149-42(A) was unconstitutional and stated a claim for municipal liability based on a formal policy. The court also determined that Fecteau had not established municipal liability based on informal policies, including a widespread custom or practice of unconstitutional entries, failure to train, or failure to screen. Accordingly, the court denied Fecteau’s request to clarify discovery as he defined it and instructed him to limit discovery to matters related to his surviving claims. Discovery about the dismissed informal-policy theories was not permitted.
Depositions of high-ranking officials
The court applied the rule that a high-ranking government official ordinarily may not be deposed absent exceptional circumstances. The party seeking the deposition must show, for example, that the official has unique first-hand knowledge relevant to the claims or that the information cannot be obtained through less burdensome means.
Fecteau argued that communications with the mayor, a commissioner, and two councilwomen showed that those officials had unique knowledge. The court found that he had not shown that they possessed information unavailable from other witnesses. The court also stated that asserting a municipal-liability claim, by itself, did not justify deposing high-ranking municipal officials. It therefore denied the request to depose high-ranking officials such as the mayor, commissioner, and councilwomen.
Request for nineteen depositions
Rule 30(a)(2)(A) generally limits each party to ten depositions unless the parties agree to more or the court grants permission. Although the court found Fecteau’s request premature because he had not exhausted the ten depositions allowed as of right, it considered the request to avoid further motion practice. The court found that Fecteau had not shown that the additional witnesses would provide unique information, rather than cumulative testimony, or that the proposed discovery was justified under the rule.
The court denied permission to depose Gregory Addison, Damon Davis, Cathlin Gleason, Brian Johnson, Darrell Morton, Jennifer Lackard, Marcel Olifiers, Shawyn Patterson-Howard, Anthony Odorisi, Hediye Mamak, Chimezie Ihedioha, and Christine Lombert. The reasons included lack of relevance to the surviving formal-policy claim, failure to establish unique knowledge, attorney-client privilege or work-product protection, and the fact that some proposed testimony concerned claims not pleaded or theories that had been dismissed.
The court permitted Fecteau to depose David Gibson, Patrick Holder, Charlene Humphreys, Montika Jones, Dawnette McLaren-Nelson, Sergeant Mario Stewart, and Jamie Pessin. The court found Pessin’s testimony relevant because he personally witnessed some events at issue. It also denied Fecteau’s request to exceed ten depositions.
Request about preemptive discovery restrictions
Fecteau asked the court to deny the City Defendants’ alleged request to restrict discovery in advance. The court found that he had not identified the restrictions he was challenging and that the City Defendants had not made such a request apart from their response to his motion. The court denied this request without prejudice.
Disposition
The court denied Fecteau’s request to clarify the scope of discovery, denied permission to exceed ten depositions, denied the requests to depose the listed high-ranking officials and other proposed witnesses, and permitted the seven identified depositions. It denied without prejudice the request concerning preemptive restrictions on discovery and directed the clerk to terminate the pending motion.
Read the full 13-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.