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 ordered a witness’s deposition to continue, subject to a 4:15 p.m. deadline.
The plaintiffs, defendants, their counsel, and Chief Booth, whose deposition was allowed to continue but was subject to a 4:15 p.m. end time.
What happened
Local 3621, EMS Officers Union, DC-37, AFSCME, AFL-CIO v. City of New York involved a discovery dispute during the continued deposition of a defense witness. The dispute concerned questions about New York Civil Service Law § 59-b affidavits and the promotional process for FDNY specialty units.
Defense counsel objected that the questions were outside the deposition’s scope and that the witness should not have to sit for additional time. The court reminded the parties that deposition objections must be concise and nonargumentative, and that counsel may direct a witness not to answer only in limited circumstances.
Sarah L. Cave, the United States Magistrate Judge, ruled that Chief Booth’s deposition could continue on November 23, 2020, but had to end by 4:15 p.m. The court’s 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. 23, 2020
Background
The court resolved by telephone a discovery dispute arising during the continued deposition of one of the defendants’ witnesses, identified in the order as Chief Booth. Plaintiffs’ counsel asked questions concerning New York Civil Service Law § 59-b deliberative-process affidavits and the promotional process for FDNY specialty units.
Defendants’ counsel opposed the questions, arguing that they were outside the scope of the continued deposition and that the witness should not be required to sit for additional time.
Ruling
The court reminded the parties of the limits on deposition objections under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30(c)(2). The court explained that an objection must be stated concisely, without argument or suggestion, and that a lawyer may instruct a witness not to answer only when necessary to preserve a privilege, enforce a court-ordered limitation, or present a motion challenging the deposition.
The court ordered that Chief Booth’s deposition could continue on November 23, 2020, but required it to end by 4:15 p.m. The order stated that the court’s full ruling was contained in the recording of the telephone call and could be made available for transcription at the parties’ request.
Disposition and Classification
This was a discovery-related procedural order. It did not decide the underlying claims in the case.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.