Galgano v. County of Putnam, New York

Background

The Individual County Defendants asked for permission to take 30 depositions in this single-plaintiff civil-rights action. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30 generally limits each side to 10 depositions unless the court grants permission for more. The defendants also filed a motion to compel Galgano to produce additional discovery. Galgano opposed both motions.

Request for 30 Depositions

The court denied the request for leave to take 30 depositions. It explained that Rule 26 requires the court to consider whether discovery is cumulative or duplicative, whether the requesting party already had a sufficient opportunity to obtain the information, and whether the burden and expense outweigh the likely benefit.

The defendants sought blanket permission to take three times the presumptive limit. The court found that granting that request without conditions would undermine the goal of cost-effective discovery and endorse a “scorched earth” approach. As one example, the defendants sought to depose eight current and former prosecutors from the Westchester County District Attorney’s Office about that office’s decision not to prosecute Galgano, but had not first attempted to obtain the office’s institutional knowledge through a deposition under Rule 30(b)(6). The defendants also had not ranked or prioritized the requested depositions. The court declined to winnow the witness list for them.

Motion to Compel

The court denied the motion to compel in its entirety. Regarding medical and pharmacy records, the defendants acknowledged that Galgano had not asserted claims concerning his arrest and prosecution for possession of narcotics. The court rejected the defendants’ argument that the legality of the narcotics found in Galgano’s office affected the damages available for the alleged illegal search. Because Galgano had not placed the otherwise privileged records at issue, the court did not require their production.

Regarding an allegation of jury tampering, the court found that the defendants appeared already to possess the relevant call transcript and Galgano’s letter to the court. Although the defendants were entitled to discovery needed to reconstruct the files available during their investigation and prosecution of Galgano, the court denied the request that Galgano search for additional documents concerning that allegation.

The court denied the request for Amar Hattar materials on relevance grounds. It denied the request for retainer agreements as overbroad and unnecessary at that time, noting Galgano’s representation that he was producing revised materials concerning privilege objections and was available to meet and confer about remaining disputes.

Disposition

Judge Paul E. Davison denied the Individual County Defendants’ letter-motion for leave to take 30 depositions and denied their motion to compel additional discovery. The Clerk was respectfully requested to close Docket Entries 544, 545, 547, and 548. The opinion identifies Paul E. Davison as the magistrate judge who signed the order; the supplied case metadata identifies Kenneth Karas as the judge.