Guillen v. City of New York

Background

The defendants filed a motion to compel, meaning a request for a court order requiring a party to provide discovery. They sought amended responses to interrogatories and document requests served on Edward Guillen. The defendants said Guillen’s responses were served after the deadlines in Rules 33 and 34 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and therefore waived most objections other than privilege objections.

The defendants also argued that Guillen improperly incorporated eleven general objections into his individual responses. They characterized objections such as “vague,” “overbroad,” “unduly burdensome,” and “disproportionate” as boilerplate because, in their view, Guillen did not explain how those objections applied or identify what information or documents he was withholding. The defendants further said the responses did not identify withheld documents, provide a privilege log, or state when documents would be produced.

Discovery Disputes

The defendants identified specific deficiencies in several discovery responses. They said Guillen did not adequately identify witnesses, statements, or documents related to the incident and lawsuit. They also said he did not answer questions about medical providers, benefits applications, insurance claims, or medical treatment during the five years before the incident. The defendants argued that this information was relevant because Guillen claimed physical injuries and emotional distress.

The defendants also sought information about Guillen’s prior arrests, convictions, incarcerations, and lawsuits. They argued that this information could relate to his claimed damages, credibility, or possible causes of his alleged injuries unrelated to the incident in this case. The defendants maintained that the information was not necessarily in their possession and that publicly available information still had to be identified in discovery.

The defendants acknowledged that the parties had a genuine disagreement about the scope of discovery concerning pre-existing injuries, the effect of Guillen’s injury claims on damages, and the discoverability of prior arrest and conviction histories. They asked the court to require Guillen to remove general and boilerplate objections, provide substantive answers, produce responsive documents or state that none exist, identify documents withheld based on privilege, provide a privilege log, and state when additional documents would be produced.

Ruling

The document ends with “SO ORDERED” and is signed by Magistrate Judge Ona T. Wang on January 29, 2021. Based on the text provided, the court ordered action on the defendants’ motion to compel. The text does not specify the exact deadline, the precise discovery responses required, or whether every requested category of discovery was granted. This was a discovery ruling and did not decide the underlying claims in the lawsuit.