Fecteau v. The City of Mount Vernon

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. The order addressed two discovery disputes: Fecteau’s claims that the City Defendants had not provided required information and his objection to pre-deposition interviews of nonparty witnesses.

Fecteau requested nine categories of information, including training records and standard operating procedures, disciplinary records, documents concerning anonymous complaints, emails, guidance concerning Mount Vernon City Code § 149-42(A), information about destroyed body-worn-camera footage, search warrants, inspection logs, and investigative reports. He also sought additional photographs of his property. The City Defendants said they had produced all relevant documents in their possession and that some requested records did not exist.

Discovery rulings

The court explained that discovery must concern nonprivileged information relevant to a claim or defense and proportional to the needs of the case. Because only certain claims remained, the court ruled that Fecteau could seek discovery concerning the City’s formal policy at issue, but not informal policies or claims that had already been dismissed.

The court denied as moot requests for further training records and standard operating procedures, the remainder of Defendant Humphreys’ disciplinary records, search warrants or affidavits of service, and inspection attendance or timekeeping logs. The City Defendants represented that the additional records did not exist or had already been produced, and the court stated that it could not compel production of nonexistent records.

The court also denied requests for supporting documentation and metadata concerning anonymous complaints, further emails involving Defendant Humphreys and city officials, interpretive guidance concerning Mount Vernon City Code § 149-42(A), police or investigative reports concerning Defendant Humphreys, and additional photographs of Fecteau’s property. Regarding the metadata, the court found that Fecteau had not shown a sufficient need for it compared with the burden of producing it.

The court granted Fecteau’s request for a sworn affirmation about the deletion of relevant body-worn-camera footage. The court noted an inconsistency between an affidavit stating that the footage should have been deleted after 180 days and information indicating that the police department used a 90-day retention period in 2023. The City Defendants must explain when the relevant footage was deleted, what they did to preserve it, and why footage from March 13, 2023 was retained for 180 days.

Pre-deposition interviews

The court ruled that counsel for the City Defendants may privately interview willing nonparty witnesses before their depositions. The court found that this type of interview is permitted and denied Fecteau’s request to stop the interviews.

The court also ruled that the City Defendants did not have to provide a list of everyone interviewed by their lawyers or investigator. They must, however, identify people with relevant knowledge as required by the federal discovery rules and supplement those disclosures if they learn of new witnesses with relevant information.

Disposition

The court granted Fecteau’s request for a sworn affirmation regarding deletion of the requested body-worn-camera footage. It denied his other listed requests for production, his request for additional photographs, his request for a list of contacted witnesses, and his request to stop pre-deposition questioning. The order therefore granted Fecteau’s requests in part and denied them in part. Judge Judith C. McCarthy signed the order.