Graterol-Garrido v. Vega
- John Cronan
- 1:20-cv-04209
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 10
In Graterol-Garrido v. Vega, Judge Cronan granted a pretrial evidence motion excluding many defense witnesses in a defamation trial.
The ruling primarily affected pro se Defendant Patricia Maria Vega by excluding or potentially limiting her proposed trial witnesses. It also affected Plaintiff Maria Herminia Graterol-Garrido and the identified witnesses.
What happened
In Graterol-Garrido v. Vega, Maria Herminia Graterol-Garrido sued Patricia Maria Vega over statements Vega allegedly published about Graterol-Garrido and her husband. The statements accused them of hiding income, transferring assets fraudulently, and defrauding state courts to avoid child-support obligations.
Graterol-Garrido asked the court to prevent Vega from calling various witnesses at the upcoming bench trial. Vega, who was representing herself, did not oppose the motion and had not explained what most of her proposed witnesses would say or why their testimony mattered to the defamation claims.
Judge Cronan granted Graterol-Garrido’s motion. The court excluded testimony from identified government officials, judges, legislators, attorneys, and court personnel, while requiring Vega to explain by April 30, 2021, the expected testimony and relevance of two other attorneys’ testimony.
The detailed version
- Graterol-Garrido v. Vega · No. 1:20-cv-04209
- John Cronan
- Apr. 20, 2021
Background
Maria Herminia Graterol-Garrido brought a defamation action against Patricia Maria Vega. The complaint alleged that Vega published three allegedly defamatory messages on May 16, 2020: a public Facebook message, a direct message to Think + Do Tank Foundation, and a public Twitter post. The messages allegedly accused Graterol-Garrido and her husband of concealing income, fraudulently transferring assets, and defrauding state courts to avoid paying child support.
The case was scheduled for a bench trial, meaning a trial decided by the judge rather than a jury, beginning May 3, 2021. Vega was representing herself. She identified at least 40 proposed witnesses or witness categories, but generally did not provide the required summaries of their expected testimony or explain how the testimony was relevant. Vega’s stated defense was that her statements were true and were made in self-defense. The court understood the self-defense argument as invoking New York’s qualified privilege for responding to an attack on one’s reputation.
Motion and ruling
Graterol-Garrido filed a motion in limine, which is a request for an advance ruling about whether proposed trial evidence may be presented. The court treated the motion as unopposed because Vega did not file an opposition or the required pretrial statement.
The court held that testimony about interpreting or applying domestic law was not admissible. It therefore excluded 13 identified officials, judges, and legislators, including Eileen Stack, Helene Weinstein, the identified Family Court and Supreme Court judges and personnel, and other identified New York officials and legislators. The court also excluded testimony from Randi Karmel, Danielle Feder, and Phyllis Solomon, who were identified as current or former attorneys for Graterol-Garrido’s husband. Vega had not shown that their testimony was relevant or admissible, and communications with their former client could be protected by attorney-client privilege.
The court also excluded testimony from specified clerks and technology officers connected with New York courts, child-support agencies, and related offices. Vega had not explained what these witnesses would say or why their testimony was needed. The court noted that records could potentially be authenticated by agreement or another less burdensome method.
The court granted Graterol-Garrido’s motion in limine. It directed Vega to submit, by April 30, 2021, a summary of the expected testimony from attorneys Kathy Polias and James Henry and an explanation of why that testimony was relevant to an issue for trial. The court stated that failure to provide that information could lead to their testimony being excluded as well. The ruling was preliminary and could be changed as the case developed. The court did not decide the ultimate merits of the defamation claims or Vega’s truth defense.
Read the full 10-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.