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
- 4
In Local 3621 v. City of New York, Judge Cave denied the union plaintiffs’ motion to reconsider a discovery order concerning witness names.
The union plaintiffs and the City of New York and other defendants in the case; the ruling required discovery to continue and left the existing discovery order in place.
What happened
In Local 3621, EMS Officers Union, DC-37, AFSCME, AFL-CIO v. City of New York, the plaintiffs asked the court to reconsider an earlier order about exchanging information and identifying witnesses for depositions.
The plaintiffs argued that the defendants had not provided the “John” and “Jane” Doe witnesses the court had ordered them to identify. The court found that an affidavit from Alvin Suriel, an Assistant Chief in the Emergency Medical Services Bureau of the Fire Department of the City of New York, listed the requested witnesses and substantially complied with the court’s orders. The court also noted that an earlier order had identified one deficiency and required the defendants to correct it.
Judge Sarah L. Cave denied the motion for reconsideration. She directed the parties to continue discovery under the existing schedule and said the plaintiffs could raise the issue later if depositions showed that the identified witnesses were not the people the plaintiffs sought.
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 17, 2020
Background
The plaintiffs filed a letter motion asking the court to reconsider its June 12, 2020 discovery order. Discovery is the pretrial process in which parties exchange information and identify evidence and witnesses. The plaintiffs argued that the defendants had disobeyed earlier orders by identifying potential witnesses under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26 but not identifying the “John” and “Jane” Doe witnesses needed for depositions under Rule 30(b)(6).
The defendants opposed the motion, and the plaintiffs filed a reply. The opinion states that the parties had already discussed the same issues at multiple conferences and that the court had issued three earlier orders addressing them.
Legal standard
The court applied Local Civil Rule 6.3 and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b). Reconsideration is an extraordinary remedy, generally available only when the court overlooked controlling law or information that could reasonably change its decision. It is not a means to repeat arguments already rejected or to raise new facts or arguments that could have been presented earlier. The moving party bears the burden of proof.
Court’s analysis
The court rejected the plaintiffs’ interpretation of the defendants’ production. The affidavit of Alvin Suriel, an Assistant Chief in the Emergency Medical Services Bureau of the Fire Department of the City of New York, identified witnesses with personal knowledge about six requested areas. The affidavit stated that it was submitted under Rule 30(b)(6), Rule 26, and the court’s May 15 and May 19, 2020 orders.
The court concluded that, on its face, the affidavit substantially complied with the court’s directives and that the names in it were the “John and Jane Does” the plaintiffs sought. The court acknowledged one deficiency concerning the defendants’ answer to Question 5, but stated that the earlier Discovery Order had already required the defendants to correct it. The plaintiffs provided no information supporting their interpretation that the affidavit remained deficient.
Disposition
Judge Sarah L. Cave denied the motion for reconsideration. The court stated that if depositions later showed that the identified witnesses were not the witnesses the plaintiffs sought and the court had ordered disclosed, the plaintiffs could raise that issue. Until then, the parties were directed to continue discovery under the operative scheduling order. The Clerk of Court was directed to close the letter motion at ECF No. 111.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.