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
- 2
In Local 3621 v. City of New York, Judge Cave resolved a deposition dispute and directed the parties to continue discovery.
The plaintiffs, the defendants, their lawyers, and the defense witness involved in the continued deposition were affected by the court’s direction to continue the deposition and follow the stated limits on objections.
What happened
Local 3621, EMS Officers Union, DC-37, AFSCME, AFL-CIO v. City of New York involved a dispute during the continued deposition of a defense witness. Plaintiffs’ lawyers asked about earlier deposition testimony, deposition topics assigned to the City’s designated witness, and recently produced documents. Defense counsel objected and told the witness not to answer.
The court ruled that the questions were proper because they referred to an earlier part of the deposition, clarified the assigned topics, or concerned a newly produced document. The court also reminded the parties that deposition objections have limits and directed them to continue the deposition.
United States Magistrate Judge Sarah L. Cave issued the November 18, 2020 order. The court said that its full ruling was recorded and could be transcribed at the parties’ request.
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
- Nov. 18, 2020
Background
The court resolved a discovery dispute by telephone during the continued deposition of one of the defendants’ witnesses. Plaintiffs’ counsel asked questions that referred to the witness’s testimony during the first part of the deposition, concerned topics for a deposition under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30(b)(6), and addressed documents that had recently been produced.
Defense counsel argued that the questions were outside the scope of the continued deposition and directed the witness not to answer.
Ruling
The court explained that it was not improper to refer back to a topic discussed earlier in the deposition, clarify answers concerning the Rule 30(b)(6) topics, or ask about a newly produced document. The court reminded the parties about the limits on deposition objections and directed them to continue the deposition.
The order states that the court’s full ruling is reflected in a recording of the telephone call, which could be made available for transcription at the parties’ request. The opinion does not state that the court entered a separate ruling on a motion or imposed sanctions.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.