Local 3621, EMS Officers Union, DC-37, AFSCME, AFL-CIO v. City of New York
- Lewis Liman
- 1:18-cv-04476
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Local 3621 v. City of New York, Judge Cave denied reconsideration and discovery requests in a class-certification discovery dispute.
The plaintiffs and defendants in the case, including the parties’ proposed electronic-discovery custodians and the plaintiffs’ requested discovery production.
What happened
Local 3621, EMS Officers Union, DC-37, AFSCME, AFL-CIO and other plaintiffs asked the court to add FDNY First Commissioner Laura Kavanagh as an electronic-discovery custodian. The City of New York and other defendants opposed that request and asked the court to reconsider an earlier order requiring searches of four custodians’ emails.
Defendants also asked the court to order plaintiffs to produce additional discovery. The court explained that the parties were conducting discovery about class certification, not discovery on the merits of the claims.
Judge Sarah L. Cave denied defendants’ reconsideration motion, denied plaintiffs’ request to add Kavanagh without prejudice, and denied defendants’ request to compel additional discovery without prejudice. The court also reminded the parties to discuss discovery disputes with each other before bringing them to the court.
The detailed version
- Local 3621, EMS Officers Union, DC-37, AFSCME, AFL-CIO v. City of New York · No. 1:18-cv-04476
- Lewis Liman
- June 1, 2020
Background
This discovery order addressed three requests. Plaintiffs asked the court to add FDNY First Commissioner Laura Kavanagh as a custodian for the electronically stored information covered by the court’s May 27, 2020 order. Defendants opposed that request, asked the court to reconsider the May 27 order requiring searches of emails belonging to Pamela Lassiter, Sabrina Jiggets, Nneka Martin, and Ruth Mariampolski, and asked the court to order plaintiffs to produce additional discovery.
Reconsideration standard
The court applied Local Civil Rule 6.3 and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b). It explained that reconsideration is an extraordinary remedy generally requiring exceptional circumstances, such as controlling authority or information the court overlooked that could reasonably change its prior conclusion. Reconsideration is not a chance to repeat rejected arguments or present facts and arguments that could have been raised earlier.
Rulings
The court found that defendants had not shown exceptional circumstances. Defendants had not provided information unavailable when the parties submitted their competing proposals for electronic-discovery custodians and had not identified controlling decisions that would alter the May 27 order. The court therefore DENIED defendants’ motion for reconsideration.
The court also DENIED without prejudice plaintiffs’ request to add Kavanagh as a custodian. It said plaintiffs had not shown a compelling need at that time or identified new facts or controlling authority overlooked by the court. Finally, the court DENIED without prejudice defendants’ request to compel additional discovery from plaintiffs at that time. The court reminded the parties that they were conducting class-certification discovery rather than merits discovery and that they must discuss discovery disputes with each other before presenting them to the court. The Clerk was directed to close the motion at ECF No. 102.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.