Local 3621, EMS Officers Union, DC-37, AFSCME, AFL-CIO v. City of New York

Background

Local 3621, EMS Officers Union, DC-37, AFSCME, AFL-CIO, two employees of the New York City Fire Department, and other plaintiffs brought a proposed class action against the City of New York, the Fire Department, the Department of Citywide Administrative Services, and several unidentified defendants. Plaintiffs alleged that employees in the Fire Department’s Emergency Medical Services Bureau seeking promotions above lieutenant were subject to disparate treatment and disparate impact based on impermissible considerations. They asserted claims under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981 and 1983, the New York State Human Rights Law, and the New York City Human Rights Law.

The motions concerned discovery for class certification. Plaintiffs sought demographic data for Emergency Medical Services employees from January 1, 2012, to the present. Defendants had made multiple productions from several city information systems, including data about employee demographics, promotions, salaries, and leave history. Defendants argued that the data produced was sufficient and objected to reproducing, merging, or reorganizing data already provided.

Discovery Dispute

Plaintiffs identified four questions arising from the produced data: unexplained spreadsheet codes; 235 employees listed in promotional histories but not demographic snapshots; 750 employees listed in annual snapshots but not promotional histories; and duplicate entries concerning employees who had ceased working for the Fire Department. Plaintiffs also relied on deposition testimony in arguing that defendants should search another database and produce additional data immediately.

The court declined to require defendants to search for and produce demographic data from another database or in another format. It reasoned that defendants had already made four demographic-data productions and that the data’s not being organized in the precise format plaintiffs preferred did not justify imposing another burden or causing additional delay. The court found good cause under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c) and determined that further discovery could be limited under Rule 26(b)(2)(C) because it would be unreasonably cumulative or duplicative or could be obtained from a more convenient, less burdensome, or less expensive source.

Ruling

The court ordered as follows:

- Plaintiffs’ motions to compel were denied to the extent they sought production of the demographic data in another form. - The motions were granted as to the four data questions. - Defendants had to make inquiries about those questions, meet and confer with plaintiffs to provide answers, and provide a Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30(b)(6) witness prepared to testify for defendants about those questions. - The deposition of that witness could last no more than two hours, and the witness was not required to testify about topics beyond the four data questions.

Magistrate Judge Sarah L. Cave directed the parties to meet and confer about the questions and schedule the witness’s deposition. The clerk was directed to close the two motions.