Crespo v. Franco

Background

The plaintiffs served an amended notice seeking a deposition of the City of New York under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30(b)(6). That rule allows a party to require an organization to designate a witness to testify about specified topics on the organization’s behalf. The plaintiffs initially identified three topics, but withdrew the third after an earlier court ruling concerning written discovery about other officers’ misconduct.

The two remaining topics concerned: (1) the City’s written and unwritten policies, orders, memoranda, practices, and customs from the relevant period concerning narcotics investigations involving undercover officers and the documentation and preservation of information; and (2) complaints or reports that Joseph Franco engaged in misconduct and the City’s investigation or response to those complaints.

The City moved for a protective order barring the deposition. It argued that the topics duplicated documents already produced and added that the deposition was not proportional to the needs of the case. The plaintiffs argued that documents could not substitute for testimony about the City’s interpretation and implementation of its policies, its unwritten practices, and its position concerning complaints about Franco.

Plaintiffs’ Proposed Narrowing

The plaintiffs maintained that the amended topics were reasonable but proposed narrower alternatives if the court found the topics too broad. They proposed removing the portion of Topic 1 concerning fabrication of inculpatory evidence. They also proposed limiting Topic 2 to complaints that Franco fabricated inculpatory evidence, withheld exculpatory evidence, or falsely testified in connection with narcotics operations on which he worked for the New York City Police Department, together with the City’s response to those complaints or reports.

The plaintiffs also proposed correcting the starting date for Topic 1 from January 1, 2007, to January 1, 2006, stating that the original date was a typographical error and that Crespo was arrested in 2006. The visible opinion text does not show a separate ruling on that proposed date correction.

Court’s Ruling

Judge Valerie Figueredo denied the City’s motion for a protective order. The endorsed order states that the narrowed topics sought information relevant and proportional to the needs of the case. It specifically states that Franco’s history of misconduct was relevant, at a minimum, to showing that the alleged misconduct directed at the plaintiffs was not the result of a mistake. It also states that information about the City’s policies and practices was relevant to whether Franco’s conduct was intentional.

The court rejected the City’s argument that Topic 1 duplicated written discovery. The endorsed order explains that a Rule 30(b)(6) deposition provides testimony binding on the organization and is qualitatively different from documents. The visible text ends during the court’s direction concerning the Clerk of Court, so it does not show the complete final wording of any additional instruction.