Galgano v. County of Putnam, New York

Background

This order addressed outstanding discovery-related motions filed by the County of Putnam and defendants Gil, Gonzalez, Levy, and Lopez, who were collectively called the Individual Defendants. The court heard argument on September 18, 2020.

The plaintiff’s complaint included claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and malicious-prosecution claims. The plaintiff argued that the defendants were not entitled to discovery about liability because the claims depended on whether the defendants’ conduct was lawful based only on the information available to them when they acted. The plaintiff objected to document requests on that basis.

Motions to Compel Discovery

The County and the Individual Defendants each moved to compel the plaintiff to respond to numerous document demands. The plaintiff opposed the motions. The court explained that Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(1) permits discovery of non-privileged information relevant to any party’s claim or defense. Information need not be admissible at trial to be discoverable, and relevance in discovery is broad.

The court rejected the plaintiff’s broad relevance objection. It found that defendants may obtain discovery about the plaintiff’s knowledge of the allegations in his complaint and evidence in his possession that relates to those allegations, even if liability may ultimately depend on what defendants knew at an earlier time. The court stated that reciprocal discovery was appropriate and that defendants had a right to this discovery under Rule 26(b)(1), due process, and fair play.

The court overruled the plaintiff’s broad relevance objection and granted the County’s and the Individual Defendants’ motions to compel. The court also noted that the plaintiff, a criminal defense attorney, might assert privilege over some responsive documents and would then need to provide a privilege log under Rule 26(b)(5). The court had separately directed production of damages-related documents by October 16, 2020.

Motion to Unseal the Third Grand Jury

The complaint had removed references to Putnam County Grand Jury Investigation Number 15-INV-008, called the Third Grand Jury. The Individual Defendants moved to unseal that proceeding’s record, and Putnam County joined the motion. The plaintiff opposed it.

The court explained that New York law and federal law require a party seeking grand-jury materials to show a compelling and particularized need. The court found that the defendants had not met that standard. Although evidence before the Third Grand Jury might be relevant to the plaintiff’s claims, the complaint as then configured concerned two earlier grand-jury investigations and their consequences, not the Third Grand Jury directly. The defendants’ interest in finding impeachment or “bad acts” evidence was not enough.

The court therefore denied the defendants’ motion to unseal the Third Grand Jury. The Clerk was directed to close docket entries 392, 396, and 399.

Classification and Effect

This was a procedural order addressing discovery and access to sealed grand-jury materials, rather than deciding the underlying civil-rights or malicious-prosecution claims. Magistrate Judge Paul E. Davison granted the motions to compel and denied the motion to unseal.