Taylor v. City of New York

Background

Michael Taylor brought this civil-rights lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that he was falsely arrested and later maliciously prosecuted. The order concerns discovery—the exchange of information and documents during a lawsuit—not the merits of those allegations.

The court had previously granted the defendants’ second motion to compel discovery in full. Taylor sought reconsideration, arguing that the court had misunderstood his earlier response and incorrectly concluded that he intended to give up objections to the discovery requests. The defendants opposed reconsideration.

Legal standard

The court explained that reconsideration is an exceptional remedy. Under Local Civil Rule 6.3, the moving party must identify controlling law or facts that the court overlooked and that could reasonably change its decision. The court may also reconsider an order to correct clear error or prevent serious unfairness. Reconsideration is not a way to reargue issues that were already decided.

Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(1), discovery may concern nonprivileged information relevant to a claim or defense and proportionate to the needs of the case. The court may limit discovery that is cumulative, duplicative, embarrassing, or oppressive. It may also balance discovery against confidentiality protections under state law.

Analysis and discovery rulings

The court found that it had misread Taylor’s earlier submission. Taylor had represented that he had served discovery responses, but he had not represented that he was waiving the objections contained in those responses. Because the earlier order preserved his ability to raise those objections, the court concluded that it had improperly granted the defendants’ second motion to compel in full.

The court then reviewed the discovery requests individually:

- Category I—criminal-justice history: The motion to compel was denied in part and granted in part. The court granted the request for a release of records protected by New York Criminal Procedure Law § 160.50 and the request for parole records. It denied the request for a release under § 160.55 because the defendants had not shown how records concerning noncriminal offenses or administrative findings were relevant. It denied without prejudice the requests for information about prior arrests and convictions. The defendants could renew those requests if they later established a sufficient basis, such as evidence that Taylor had an extensive arrest record in another jurisdiction.

- Category II—employment history and income taxes: The motion to compel was granted in part and denied in part. Taylor had agreed to comply with the request for employment-record releases, so the court did not sustain his objection to that request. The court overruled his objection to the request for income-tax-return releases because he sought lost wages. It denied the request for an interrogatory identifying his employers for the past ten years because the defendants had not shown a specific basis for seeking possible impeachment evidence through that interrogatory.

- Category III—workers’ compensation, disability, and insurance claims: The motion to compel was denied. The court found that the defendants had not shown how these records related to Taylor’s claimed emotional or psychological damages. The court also noted that the defendants had not argued that this information was relevant to lost income and had already required production of recent income-tax returns for that issue.

- Category IV—prior lawsuits: The motion to compel was denied. The defendants had not explained how identifying all prior lawsuits would be relevant to calculating Taylor’s damages, and the court treated the request as improper under the local rule governing interrogatories.

- Category V—medical treatment: The motion to compel was granted. The court found Taylor’s medical history relevant to his claimed physical and emotional damages and concluded that he had waived medical privilege by affirmatively asserting those damages. The required discovery was limited to identifying medical and mental-health providers and providing a release for medical and psychological treatment records for the five years before the arrest.

Disposition

Judge Katherine Polk Failla granted in part and denied in part Taylor’s motion for reconsideration. The court extended the deadline for completing fact discovery to December 21, 2020.