Maldonado v. Town Of Greenburgh

Background

Nancy Maldonado, acting as the administrator of Jonathan Maldonado’s estate, sued the Town of Greenburgh, Police Officer Jean-Paul Lara, Lieutenant Gregory P. Attalienti, Police Officer Richard Maguire, and Detective/Paramedic Sean Freeman. The complaint alleged constitutional violations and tort claims arising from Jonathan Maldonado’s death after a struggle with police officers. The opinion states that an autopsy attributed the death to acute mixed drug intoxication and an accident, while Maldonado alleged that police use of force, including repeated Taser use, caused the death.

Discovery focused in part on whether Jonathan Maldonado had a history of opioid use. About seven months after fact discovery ended and two weeks after expert discovery ended, Maldonado’s counsel disclosed a single unopened packet of Suboxone that Maldonado had found in her son’s bedroom shortly after his death. Maldonado said that trauma from her son’s death caused her to forget where she had put the packet until she found it later.

Proceedings Before the District Court

Maldonado asked Magistrate Judge Andrew Krause to reopen discovery on the limited question of how and when the packet was found so that it could be provided to her expert. The defendants moved to preclude Maldonado from using the packet as evidence and also sought costs and fees associated with additional discovery. Judge Krause denied the motion to preclude, granted the motion to reopen discovery, and denied the defendants’ motion to recover costs and fees, as described in the opinion’s introduction.

The defendants objected under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(a). Because the challenged matters concerned discovery and were not dispositive of the claims, the district court could set aside the magistrate judge’s order only if it was clearly erroneous or contrary to law. The court explained that this standard is highly deferential and that discovery rulings receive substantial deference.

Analysis

The defendants argued that Judge Krause clearly erred in finding that Maldonado lacked a culpable state of mind when she failed to disclose the packet earlier. They contended that Maldonado had an advantage to gain by delaying disclosure. The district court rejected that argument, agreeing that Judge Krause had considered it and reasonably concluded that intentionally withholding evidence favorable to Maldonado, while risking exclusion of that evidence, made no sense.

The defendants also argued that Judge Krause improperly used a subjective standard when finding that Maldonado was not negligent. The district court recognized that ordinary negligence generally involves an objective inquiry into whether a person unreasonably breached a duty of care. It nevertheless held that the inquiry may consider the circumstances surrounding the disclosure. The court concluded that Judge Krause properly considered that Maldonado found the packet shortly after her son’s death and before this action began, and that the finding of a non-negligent explanation was not clearly erroneous.

Finally, the defendants argued that reopening discovery was improper because discovery had already closed. The district court disagreed, noting that no summary-judgment briefing schedule or trial date had yet been set. It concluded that a limited continuance remained feasible and that the cases cited by the defendants were distinguishable. The court also noted that, even if the continuance factor favored exclusion, Judge Krause had found that two other factors weighed against preclusion and the defendants had not challenged those findings.

Disposition

Judge Kenneth M. Karas overruled the defendants’ objections and affirmed Judge Krause’s order denying the defendants’ motion to preclude the Suboxone packet and granting Maldonado’s motion to reopen discovery. The opinion does not decide the underlying constitutional or tort claims, whether the packet will ultimately be admitted at trial, or whether the defendants are liable for Jonathan Maldonado’s death.