IN RE: NEW YORK CITY POLICING DURING SUMMER 2020 DEMONSTRATIONS
- Colleen McMahon
- 1:20-cv-08924
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 7
In In re: New York City Policing During Summer 2020 Demonstrations, Judge Gorenstein declined the City’s protective-order request and extended its response deadline to July 8, 2022.
The City defendants and the plaintiffs in the consolidated demonstration-policing cases, particularly concerning the City’s responses to plaintiffs’ requests for admission and related discovery.
What happened
In In re: New York City Policing During Summer 2020 Demonstrations, City defendants asked to avoid responding to most of the plaintiffs’ 271 remaining requests for admission and related interrogatories and document requests. They argued the requests were improper, burdensome, and harassing.
The court directed the City to answer or object to the requests under the applicable procedure. It said the City could object to groups of requests based on burdensomeness or other valid grounds without filing a separate protective-order motion. The court did not tie the response deadline to a possible future ruling on those objections.
The court extended the deadline for responses to July 8, 2022, because it determined that a one-week delay would not affect the case’s progress. Judge Gabriel W. Gorenstein said the City could seek another extension for a particular request by showing specific good cause and following the court’s procedures.
The detailed version
- IN RE: NEW YORK CITY POLICING DURING SUMMER 2020 DEMONSTRATIONS · No. 1:20-cv-08924
- Colleen McMahon
- June 29, 2022
Background
Plaintiffs served requests for admission on the City defendants. The City reported that plaintiffs had withdrawn 15 requests, leaving 271 requests, each accompanied by an interrogatory and a document request. The City asked for a protective order under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c) relieving it from responding to requests it considered improper, unduly burdensome, or harassing. The City also asked to extend the July 1, 2022 response deadline by two weeks or until two weeks after the court ruled on the protective-order request, whichever was later.
The City argued that many requests sought disputed facts, legal conclusions, explanations, information from lengthy documents or videos, and matters more appropriate for depositions, interrogatories, or trial. It also argued that the requests collectively imposed an excessive burden.
Court’s action
The court’s endorsement directed the City to follow Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 36, which governs requests for admission. The court stated that the City must answer or object. It said the City could object to groups of requests on grounds of burdensomeness or other valid grounds, and that it did not need to file a protective-order motion to do so, although such a motion was permitted after compliance with the court’s required meet-and-confer procedure. If plaintiffs challenged the City’s responses, they could seek relief under Rule 36(a)(6), but only after following that procedure.
The court rejected the City’s request to connect the response deadline for unobjectionable requests to a possible future ruling on burdensomeness or other objections. The court extended the deadline to July 8, 2022, finding that a one-week delay would not affect the progress of the case. The City could request more time for a particular request only by showing specific good cause and making a new application under the court’s procedures.
Disposition
The court did not grant the requested protective order relieving the City from responding to the identified requests. It extended the deadline to respond to the requests to July 8, 2022. The endorsement does not state a separate formal disposition using the word “denied” for the protective-order request.
Read the full 7-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.