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
- 5
In Local 3621 v. City of New York, Judge Cave granted in part and denied in part Plaintiffs’ Rule 60(a) discovery motion.
The plaintiffs and defendants in the case, particularly the parties involved in class-certification discovery, are affected. The plaintiffs may renew a request for additional demographic data during merits discovery, but the court otherwise left its earlier discovery rulings unchanged.
What happened
In Local 3621, EMS Officers Union, DC-37, AFSCME, AFL-CIO v. City of New York, the plaintiffs asked the court to clarify an earlier discovery order concerning Renae Mascol’s disciplinary history, demographic data, and related testimony and documents.
The court declined to change its earlier rulings. It said information about Mascol’s disciplinary history was relevant and discoverable, denied requests for additional testimony, data, documents, or an affidavit about the demographic data, and denied the request for an immediate conference as moot.
Judge Sarah L. Cave granted the motion in part only by clarifying that the plaintiffs may request additional demographic data during merits discovery; in all other respects, the motion was denied.
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
- Dec. 16, 2020
Background
The plaintiffs filed a letter-motion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(a), which allows a court to correct an oversight or omission in an order so that the order accurately reflects the decision the court made. They sought clarification of the court’s December 9 and December 15, 2020 discovery orders.
The plaintiffs asked about four matters: the scope of discoverable information concerning Renae Mascol’s disciplinary history at emergency medical services; sworn testimony about whether defendants’ demographic-data production was complete and which files corresponded to 13 requested data points; production of four additional areas of data with an affidavit from a Rule 30(b)(6) witness; and whether the denial of additional demographic-data production was without prejudice to requesting the information during merits discovery. They also requested an immediate conference.
Court’s Analysis
The court held that the plaintiffs had not identified an error or omission requiring correction under Rule 60(a). Regarding Mascol’s disciplinary history, the court explained that neither the December 9 order nor the authorities on which it relied limited the type or scope of discoverable disciplinary-history information. The court had already found that information concerning Mascol’s disciplinary history was relevant and proportional to the needs of the case. It also explained that discoverable information need not itself be admissible at trial.
The court denied the plaintiffs’ request for testimony under oath about the completeness of the demographic-data production and the relationship between files and the 13 data points. It gave three reasons: the request depended on the previously denied request for additional demographic data; the December 15 order had already identified the permissible data-related questions for a Rule 30(b)(6) witness; and the plaintiffs cited no authority requiring defendants to certify the completeness of their production at that stage of discovery. The court noted that defendants had represented that they produced all data requested under their October 30, 2020 letter to the court.
The court also denied the request for four additional areas of data and an affidavit. It understood that request either as an attempt to reargue the request for additional demographic data or as a request to expand the limited testimony about the data-related questions allowed by the December 15 order.
Ruling
Judge Sarah L. Cave granted the plaintiffs’ motion in part and denied it in part. The court clarified that its December 15 denial of the plaintiffs’ motion to compel additional demographic data during class-certification discovery did not prevent the plaintiffs from requesting that information during merits discovery. The court otherwise denied the motion, including the requests concerning the scope of Mascol’s disciplinary-history discovery, additional demographic data and documents, an affidavit or expanded testimony, and an immediate conference. The conference request was denied as moot. The clerk was directed to close the letter-motion at ECF No. 268.
Read the full 5-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.