Morales v. City of New York
- John Koeltl
- 1:18-cv-01573
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
In Morales v. City of New York, Magistrate Judge Freeman denied Morales’s request for additional depositions and closed discovery.
Ricardo Morales’s efforts to obtain additional depositions were denied, and discovery in the case was closed. The defendants were not required to produce Shorris, Wolfe, or Hinton for depositions.
What happened
In Morales v. City of New York, Ricardo Morales asked to take depositions of three former New York City officials: Anthony Shorris, Emma Wolfe, and Karen Hinton.
The court found that Morales had not shown the required exceptional circumstances for deposing Shorris or Wolfe. It also found that he delayed seeking Hinton’s deposition, lacked good cause for missing the discovery deadline, and had not shown an evidentiary connection between Hinton’s alleged conduct and his firing. The court denied the request for additional discovery in all respects.
Magistrate Judge Debra Freeman ruled that discovery was closed and directed the parties to submit a settlement-status letter and consult Judge Koeltl’s procedures about possible summary-judgment motions and trial.
The detailed version
- Morales v. City of New York · No. 1:18-cv-01573
- John Koeltl
- May 20, 2020
Background
In a November 21, 2019 order, the court granted Ricardo Morales’s request to compel the deposition of Jon Paul Lupo, but denied without prejudice his requests to depose Anthony Shorris and Emma Wolfe. After Lupo’s deposition, Morales renewed his requests for Shorris and Wolfe and also sought permission to depose Karen Hinton.
Depositions of Shorris and Wolfe
The earlier order found that Morales had not shown the “exceptional circumstances” required to depose high-ranking officials in the Mayor’s Office. In particular, he had not shown that Shorris had unique firsthand knowledge related to his claims or that there was a clear link between his firing and Wolfe’s alleged conduct.
In support of his renewed request, Morales submitted email chains and excerpts from depositions of Lisette Camilo, Dominic Williams, and Emily Newman. He argued that these materials showed Shorris and Wolfe had unique personal knowledge relevant to his claims. The court found that the materials did not fill the evidentiary gaps identified in the earlier order and denied Morales’s renewed motion to compel their depositions.
Deposition of Hinton
Morales argued that Hinton’s deposition was necessary because she allegedly had substantial involvement in communications concerning him, Rivington, and an investigation by the U.S. Attorney’s Office. The court found that Morales had known about Hinton’s alleged role since at least December 16, 2019, when defendants produced two unredacted email chains. He did not subpoena Hinton until February 5, 2020, two days before the extended fact-discovery deadline.
The court held that Morales had not shown good cause for seeking discovery after the deadline or demonstrated diligence in trying to depose Hinton during the discovery period. The court also found that he had not shown exceptional circumstances or provided cited evidence linking his firing to Hinton’s alleged conduct. It therefore denied the motion to compel Hinton’s deposition.
Ruling and next steps
Magistrate Judge Debra Freeman denied Morales’s motion to compel in all respects. The court concluded that discovery was closed and directed the parties to submit a joint letter by May 29, 2020, about the potential for settlement. It also directed them to consult Judge Koeltl’s individual practices regarding possible summary-judgment motions and trial.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.