The Estate of Miguel Antonio Richards v. The City Of New York

Background

This order addresses a discovery dispute in the Estate of Miguel Antonio Richards’s case against the City of New York and Police Officers Jesus Ramos, Mark Fleming, Redmond Murphy, and Marcos Oliveros. The estate sought to compel production of:

1. Unredacted Civilian Complaint Review Board histories, Central Personnel Index reports, and New York Police Department Internal Affairs Bureau resumes; and 2. Investigative files concerning other use-of-force allegations.

The court treated the parties’ joint letter requesting a pre-motion conference as the estate’s motion to compel further discovery. The court required the defendants to address their objections that the requests were unduly burdensome, explain the categories of information redacted as irrelevant, and submit the disputed records for private judicial review.

Legal standard

Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(1), discovery may cover nonprivileged information relevant to a party’s claim or defense. The information need not itself be admissible at trial, but it must be reasonably calculated to lead to admissible evidence. The court explained that prior acts of excessive force may be relevant in a civil-rights claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 when they bear on issues such as intent, pattern, or absence of mistake. Discovery of police disciplinary records in such cases is generally limited to complaints involving conduct similar to the conduct alleged in the case. The court also noted that unsubstantiated complaints generally are not relevant to intent.

Court’s analysis

The court found that the estate had not shown a sufficient connection between most of the requested information and its claims. It ruled that information about negligent screening, hiring, and training was not discoverable at that time because the individual officers were undisputedly acting within the scope of their employment, and discovery concerning the estate’s municipal-liability claim under Monell was stayed while the individual-liability claims were being adjudicated.

The court’s private review showed that most of the records concerned matters such as delayed responses to calls, offensive or threatening language, missing personal property, and incomplete or improper memorandum-book entries. The court found those matters generally unrelated to the alleged conduct underlying the estate’s § 1983 claim, which involved the discharge of a taser and firearms. The court also found that many complaints were unsubstantiated.

The court identified a limited category of relevant material. It found that entries for Officers Fleming, Murphy, and Ramos arising from the shooting involved in this case were unquestionably relevant. It also considered an entry concerning Officer Ramos’s prior taser use, but found that entry irrelevant because the investigation concluded that the force was appropriate and not unlawful, and the allegation was closed as exonerated. The court therefore did not require production of that entry or the other unrelated materials.

Disposition

The court denied in part and granted in part the estate’s motion to compel. To the extent the materials had not already been produced, the defendants were ordered to produce by October 26, 2020, at 5:00 p.m., any entries in the Civilian Complaint Review Board histories, Central Personnel Index reports, Internal Affairs Bureau resumes, and investigative files that related to the shooting and death of Miguel Antonio Richards.