Ferguson v. City of New York

Background

Ronisha Ferguson, represented by counsel, brought federal civil-rights claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on behalf of herself and her two minor children. In the letter submitted to the court, her lawyers alleged that police officers entered Ferguson’s home without a warrant, consent, or emergency circumstances and that child-welfare personnel, with police assistance, removed and detained the children. The letter alleged that the children were later placed in foster care, where they were physically abused, and that a Family Court judge eventually ordered their return.

Requested relief

Ferguson asked for discovery before the parties’ usual discovery conference so she could learn the full names of four police officers and an Administration for Children’s Services deputy director. Two officers were identified by last name as Cotto and Basora, although the letter noted uncertainty about Basora’s name; two others were identified as John Doe officers. The letter also requested either an order requiring the City to provide the names or permission to serve a subpoena for documents containing that information. Ferguson additionally asked for permission to amend the complaint after identifying the defendants.

Her lawyers argued that expedited discovery was necessary because of potential time limits on claims against unidentified defendants. They also argued that the requested information was in the City’s possession and that the City would face little burden in providing it. These were the plaintiff’s arguments; the court did not decide whether the allegations or legal arguments were correct.

Court’s action

Judge Katherine Polk Failla stated that the court was “disinclined” to grant Ferguson’s requested relief without first hearing from the defendants. The court therefore ordered the defendants to respond to Ferguson’s letter within one week after filing their notices of appearance.

The order did not grant or deny the requests for expedited discovery, identification of the defendants, or permission to amend the complaint. It also did not decide the underlying civil-rights claims.