Scott Fleming v. The City Of New York
- Willis
- 1:18-cv-04866
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Patricia Scott Fleming v. The City of New York, Judge Willis allowed 17 depositions, not 54, while leaving open a later request.
Patricia Scott Fleming, as Administratix of the Estate of Patrick Fleming, and the defendants are affected because the order limits the depositions Plaintiff may conduct and sets standards for seeking additional depositions.
What happened
Patricia Scott Fleming v. The City of New York concerns the estate’s request to take 54 depositions in the case. The request exceeded the usual limit of 10 depositions under the federal rules.
The court found the request premature because it had not yet decided whether Fleming could file a third amended complaint, and no depositions had occurred. It also said it was unclear what information additional depositions would provide beyond the first 10.
The court authorized a total of 17 depositions and said Fleming could later ask for more if circumstances supported that request. Judge Jennifer E. Willis also gave guidance about avoiding repetitive or burdensome depositions and ordered the clerk to close docket entry 210.
The detailed version
- Scott Fleming v. The City Of New York · No. 1:18-cv-04866
- Willis
- Aug. 8, 2022
Issue and Background
The court reviewed the parties’ filings concerning Plaintiff’s request to conduct 54 depositions. The court noted that Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30 generally provides for 10 depositions. At the time of the ruling, no depositions had occurred, and the court had not decided whether Plaintiff would be permitted to file a Third Amended Complaint.
Ruling on the Number of Depositions
The court found the request for 54 depositions premature but recognized that many of the defendants named in the Second Amended Complaint could be relevant. It authorized Plaintiff to conduct a total of 17 depositions. The opinion did not use a formal “granted” or “denied” label for the request.
The court stated that Plaintiff could seek permission for additional depositions if Plaintiff was allowed to file a Third Amended Complaint or after conducting 17 depositions and determining that more were warranted. For any later request, Plaintiff would need to explain the distinct, non-repetitive information sought from each witness and rank the proposed depositions by priority. The court said it would not allow additional depositions that were unreasonably repetitive, sought information already available from earlier discovery, or imposed a burden or expense greater than their likely benefit.
Guidance About Potential Witnesses
The court stated that, without additional argument, information from medical professionals appeared duplicative of Patrick Fleming’s medical records. It said opinions about those records were more appropriately obtained from expert witnesses rather than fact witnesses. The court also stated that information from high-level officials who lacked personal, unique knowledge of Plaintiff’s claims was irrelevant unless and until discovery concerning potential municipal liability under Monell was allowed.
The court considered correctional officers and investigators potentially relevant to many claims but found witnesses with first-hand knowledge of the incidents more relevant than investigators without that knowledge. It also found depositions of Patrick Fleming’s family members not relevant to Plaintiff’s claims.
Disposition
The court authorized 17 depositions, provided guidance for any later request for additional depositions, and directed the clerk to close docket entry 210. Judge Jennifer E. Willis signed the order.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.