Minus v. New York City Police Department
- Jesse Furman
- 1:17-cv-04623
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Minus v. Benvenuto, Judge Furman reopened limited discovery so Minus could question the officers before ruling on their protection-from-suit motion.
Omar Minus and Officers Brian Benvenuto and Joseph Tennariello; the order governs limited additional discovery and briefing on the officers’ pending qualified-immunity motion.
What happened
In Minus v. Officer Brian Benvenuto and Officer Joseph Tennariello, the defendants asked for summary judgment based on qualified immunity, a legal protection that can shield officers from a lawsuit. The remaining claim alleged that Omar Minus was unlawfully strip searched.
The court said the record did not show enough about the circumstances surrounding the search. The defendants had not submitted supporting declarations and had not been questioned in depositions, making it difficult to determine whether they reasonably relied on a superior officer’s instructions.
Judge Jesse M. Furman reopened discovery for the limited purpose of allowing Minus to question each defendant for up to three hours. The depositions had to be completed by November 20, 2020, and the parties had to file supplemental briefs by December 11, 2020. The order did not resolve the pending qualified-immunity motion.
The detailed version
- Minus v. New York City Police Department · No. 1:17-cv-04623
- Jesse Furman
- Oct. 28, 2020
Background
The case’s sole surviving claim was Omar Minus’s claim that he was unlawfully strip searched. On April 3, 2020, the court allowed Officers Brian Benvenuto and Joseph Tennariello to file a second motion for summary judgment addressing qualified immunity. Qualified immunity is a legal protection that may shield government officials from liability when the law did not clearly establish that their conduct was unlawful.
The officers argued that qualified immunity applied because they conducted the strip search at the direction of a superior officer. The court explained that, under Second Circuit law, plausible instructions from a superior or fellow officer can support qualified immunity when the surrounding circumstances could lead a reasonable officer to conclude that the required legal justification existed.
Reason for Reopening Discovery
The court found the factual record inadequate to assess that argument. The defendants had not filed declarations supporting their motion, and they had not been deposed during discovery. As a result, the court said it was difficult, if not impossible, to determine the relevant surrounding circumstances or whether those circumstances could have led reasonable officers to believe that the strip search was legally justified.
The court also noted that qualified immunity for officers who follow orders has been recognized only when the orders were facially valid. The opinion stated that the court had authority to reopen discovery under Rule 56(d)(2) or Rule 56(e)(4) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. It further noted that Minus had not filed a Rule 56(d) declaration, but that counsel may have misunderstood whether the court would consider reopening discovery after discovery had closed and the first summary-judgment motion had been decided.
Order
Judge Jesse M. Furman concluded that reopening discovery was in the interests of justice. The court reopened discovery for the limited purpose of allowing Minus to take depositions of the defendants. Each deposition was limited to three hours and had to be completed by November 20, 2020. Unless the parties agreed otherwise or the court ordered otherwise after a proper letter motion, the depositions were to occur remotely by videoconference. The parties were required to file supplemental briefs, and any appropriate supporting papers, by December 11, 2020, addressing whether the depositions affected the pending motion. The opinion did not grant or deny that motion.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.