Martinez v. New York Police Department
- Alison Nathan
- 1:19-cv-09885
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Martinez v. City of New York, Judge Parker ordered a City deposition within 30 days after Judge Nathan rules on defendants’ objection.
Ian-Carlos Martinez and the City of New York and other defendants involved in the deposition dispute.
What happened
In Martinez v. City of New York, plaintiff Ian-Carlos Martinez sought to take a deposition of the City of New York through a designated organization witness. Earlier, the court had ordered that deposition to occur within three weeks.
Defendants did not produce a witness by the scheduled date because they had filed an objection and asked Judge Nathan to reconsider the earlier order and pause discovery. The opinion states that Judge Nathan had not granted a pause, and Martinez asked the court to extend discovery and require the deposition.
Judge Parker ordered that the deposition take place within 30 days after Judge Nathan rules on the objection. The order did not decide the underlying claims in the case.
The detailed version
- Martinez v. New York Police Department · No. 1:19-cv-09885
- Alison Nathan
- Apr. 26, 2021
Background
Plaintiff Ian-Carlos Martinez was proceeding without a lawyer, but Daniel M. Ketani stated that he was serving as pro bono counsel for the limited purpose of taking and defending depositions. The letter concerned a deposition of the City of New York under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30(b)(6), which allows an organization to designate one or more witnesses to testify about specified topics.
The opinion states that on April 5, 2021, the court denied defendants’ request for a protective order and ordered the City’s deposition to occur within the next three weeks. Martinez’s counsel contacted defendants several times to schedule the deposition. Defendants said they were identifying qualified witnesses, later stated that they intended to seek reconsideration and a stay, and ultimately told Martinez that they would not produce a witness for the noticed deposition.
Defendants filed an objection and a request for reconsideration and a stay with Judge Alison J. Nathan. The opinion states that Judge Nathan had not granted a stay. Martinez argued that merely filing the objection did not excuse defendants from complying with the magistrate judge’s order and asked for an extension of fact discovery, an order requiring the City to produce a witness, and other appropriate relief.
Order
Judge Katharine H. Parker ordered: “The 30(b)(6) deposition at issue shall take place within 30 days after the Hon. Alison J. Nathan rules on the objection filed at ECF No. 86.” The order therefore set the timing for the deposition in relation to Judge Nathan’s ruling on the objection. The text provided does not state that Judge Parker granted or denied each specific request in Martinez’s letter.
What the Order Decided
This was a discovery and case-management order. It did not decide whether Martinez or defendants were right on the underlying claims, and the text provided does not describe the claims’ merits.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.