Williams v. Aaron Johnson

Background

This action arose from Jamal Williams’s November 18, 2015 arrest by the New York City Police Department and his later prosecution based on a criminal complaint signed by Aaron Johnson. The criminal case involved alleged possession of a firearm and marijuana and was dismissed at the request of the People on June 16, 2016, because they could not prove it beyond a reasonable doubt.

Williams sued Johnson and others for false arrest, malicious prosecution, denial of the right to a fair trial, and failure to intervene. After discovery, a prior ruling granted the defendants’ summary-judgment motion in part and left two claims against Johnson for trial: malicious prosecution and denial of a fair trial. Those claims largely concerned whether Johnson had probable cause to prosecute Williams for possessing a revolver found in the bedroom of Williams’s brother, Andrew Hudson.

Late-Produced Video

On December 29, 2020, shortly before the scheduled trial, the Law Department produced a 37-second video that appeared to show Williams displaying a revolver and making a statement about shooting someone who violated him. Counsel for Johnson said the video came from a confidential informant who obtained it from Facebook. Williams’s counsel reported that Williams said the video had been on a phone taken by an ex-girlfriend before his arrest and assumed she gave it to the police.

The Law Department had received the video no later than September 2017. During discovery, however, Johnson had denied that he possessed documents or other materials responsive to a demand seeking photographs, videos, and similar media concerning the contraband, including the handgun. The court found that the video fell within that demand and should have been produced. The court rejected the characterization of the video as only impeachment evidence because it also bore directly on whether Williams exercised control over the handgun and whether there was probable cause to prosecute him.

The court also found that Williams had engaged in substantial misconduct. It concluded that he knew about the video and the facts it depicted, even if he no longer possessed the phone, and that he pursued a case of dubious merit while concealing that information. The court noted, however, that this did not excuse the Law Department’s separate discovery failure.

Analysis and Disposition

Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(2), a court may dismiss an action at the plaintiff’s request on terms it considers proper. Williams requested dismissal of his remaining claims with prejudice, and Johnson joined that request. The court therefore granted the request to dismiss the action with prejudice.

Williams also sought sanctions under Rule 37(d), which addresses a party’s failure to attend a deposition or to serve answers, objections, or written responses to properly served discovery demands. The court concluded that Rule 37(d) did not apply to the Law Department’s conduct. It also declined to use the court’s inherent power because the record did not support the required finding of bad faith.

Instead, the court used Rule 41(a)(2) to impose a sanction as a term of the requested dismissal. Because Williams was not entitled to a reward for his own misconduct and the case was ending, the court selected a nominal payment rather than a nonmonetary remedy. The court’s conclusion granted Williams’s letter-motion to the extent that the action was dismissed with prejudice and the Law Department was ordered to promptly pay $100 to the Clerk of Court. The Clerk was directed to close the case.