Farmer v. The County of Westchester

Background

Tyrone Farmer brought this action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a federal law allowing claims for certain constitutional violations. The opinion states that Farmer filed an amended complaint on October 26, 2018. The defendants are the County of Westchester, the City of Peekskill, Eric Johansen, Pamela Sgroi, a Jane or John Doe Records Access Officer, Sgt. Henderlong, Officer Vazeo, and Officer Sean Echols.

The court had issued an order requiring the City of Peekskill Corporation Counsel’s Office to identify the unnamed records-access defendants. Westchester County informed the court that none of its employees matched the description and that it did not control or supervise the City of Peekskill or its employees. The Peekskill defendants later identified the unnamed records officer as Sergeant Sean Echols, who was already a named defendant. Their counsel explained that the delay resulted from a failure to monitor electronic filings and was not willful or in bad faith.

Motion for Sanctions

Farmer sought sanctions based on the defendants’ delayed compliance with the court’s identification order and a later order setting a deadline. The court found that Westchester County had fully complied with the later order. As to the Peekskill defendants, the court found no bad faith and noted that their counsel complied promptly after learning of the order. The court found no misconduct by any defendant and denied Farmer’s second motion for sanctions.

Motion to Schedule a Trial and Related Relief

Farmer asked the court to schedule a trial, strike the defendants’ opposition, enter default or default judgment, grant summary judgment, and make evidentiary rulings, including an adverse-inference instruction based on the alleged destruction of his cell phone.

The court denied the motion to schedule a trial and related relief. It found the request premature because no defendant had filed an answer, the defendants had sought permission to file motions to dismiss, and discovery had not begun. The court also found that summary judgment was premature. It stated that Farmer could raise evidentiary issues such as evidence destruction at an appropriate time. The court further found that the Peekskill defendants had offered a reasonable excuse for their default and showed a likelihood of success on the merits, so default or default judgment was unwarranted. The court also found no basis to strike the defendants’ opposition.

Defendants’ Pre-Motion Letters

The defendants sought permission to file motions to dismiss. The court waived the requirement of a pre-motion conference and granted the defendants leave to file those motions according to this schedule: moving papers were to be served, but not filed, on July 6, 2020; Farmer’s opposition was to be served, but not filed, on August 20, 2020; and any replies were to be served on September 4, 2020. On September 4, 2020, the parties were directed to file the motion papers on the court’s electronic filing system.

Disposition

The court denied Farmer’s motion for sanctions and denied his motion to schedule a trial and obtain related relief. It granted the defendants’ letter motions for leave to file motions to dismiss in accordance with the stated schedule. The order did not decide the merits of Farmer’s underlying constitutional claims.