Komatsu v. The City of New York

Background

Defendants submitted a letter asking the court to compel Towaki Komatsu to provide complete responses to their first set of document requests and interrogatories. Komatsu opposed the requested relief and, in some instances, supplied additional information. The order addressed each discovery request separately.

Rulings on Interrogatories

The court granted defendants’ request concerning Interrogatory No. 1 and required Komatsu to provide identifying information, including telephone numbers, for the witnesses or other people with knowledge whom he had named or referred to. The court rejected his objections and explained that interrogatory answers ordered by the court must be sworn.

For Interrogatory Nos. 2 and 3, the court required Komatsu to identify written or recorded statements relating to the claims or subject matter of the case that he knew about, including statements by the City of New York or its employees. He did not have to identify oral statements based only on his recollection. The court rejected his objections that the information was burdensome, outside the case’s scope, or already available to the City.

For Interrogatory No. 4, the court required information about physical or psychological injuries only to the extent Komatsu sought damages for those injuries. If he identified such injuries, he also had to identify treatment providers and provide related medical information as required. If he identified no such injuries, he did not have to provide medical or psychological records.

For Interrogatory No. 5, Komatsu had to identify all claimed economic injuries, including past or future lost wages, under oath, and produce documents in his possession, custody, or control concerning those damages. The court warned that failure to do so could prevent him from seeking those damages or using the documents to support a damages claim.

For Interrogatory No. 6, the court required employment information from January 1, 2010, to the present, and employment-record releases, but only if Komatsu sought lost-wage damages. Interrogatory No. 7 was narrowed to medical providers who treated injuries identified in response to Interrogatory No. 4. Interrogatory No. 8 was limited to workers’ compensation claims made after April 27, 2017, through the present.

Interrogatory No. 9 required information about applications for Social Security disability benefits, and an authorization, only if Komatsu claimed medical or psychological injuries. Interrogatory No. 13 was limited to arrests before April 27, 2017. Interrogatory No. 14 required sworn information about felony convictions, convictions involving a dishonest act or false statement, and convictions resulting from arrests identified under Interrogatory No. 13. The court also ordered proper responses to Interrogatory Nos. 16, 19, and 20, concerning testimony or statements about the lawsuit, documents relating to the case, and Freedom of Information Law requests.

For Interrogatory No. 21, the court required Komatsu to identify social-media accounts containing communications about town hall meetings or other public or mayoral events that he attended or attempted to attend in March and April 2017. He did not have to identify unrelated accounts. The court rejected his First Amendment objection to producing relevant discovery.

Rulings on Document Requests

The court granted Document Request No. 1 to the extent it sought documents identified in the interrogatories and ordered production consistent with the limits described above. It granted Document Requests Nos. 3 and 11 as to records and authorizations involving providers identified in response to Interrogatory No. 7. It also ordered production of photographs and audiovisual materials concerning the incident and injuries, documents concerning complaints to government agencies, documents concerning certain 2017 event registrations, documents concerning questions or comments Komatsu intended to make at the April 27, 2017 town hall, and documents or information distributed or intended for distribution at specified 2017 events.

The court denied Document Request No. 9, which sought income-tax returns, because defendants had not shown the required compelling need at that time. For Document Request No. 18, Komatsu had to produce responsive registration documents if he possessed or controlled them, or state that he did not possess them. The court rejected Komatsu’s position that he could withhold discovery until defendants first provided discovery he had requested.

Disposition

Magistrate Judge Gabriel W. Gorenstein granted defendants’ discovery application in substantial part, narrowed or conditioned several requests, and denied the request for income-tax returns at that time. He ordered Komatsu to serve complete responses to the interrogatories and document requests described in the order by January 15, 2021. The order was a discovery ruling and did not decide the underlying claims.