Rivera v. Lettire Construction Corp.
- Katharine Parker
- 1:21-cv-06006
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Rivera v. Lettire Construction Corp., Magistrate Judge Parker ordered defendants to respond to a request delaying audio-recording disclosure until after a witness’s deposition.
The order concerned the plaintiff, the defendants, and non-party witness Guillermo Sanchez Melgarejo, whose deposition and recorded statements were at issue. It directed the defendants to respond but did not decide the requested protective order.
What happened
In Rivera v. Lettire Construction Corp., the plaintiff asked to delay producing two audio recordings of non-party witness Guillermo Sanchez Melgarejo until after his scheduled deposition. The plaintiff said the recordings had been kept for possible impeachment and that advance disclosure could allow the witness to tailor his testimony.
The plaintiff argued that delaying disclosure would protect the deposition’s truth-seeking purpose while still allowing the recordings to be provided before trial. The request was for a temporary, limited protective order concerning discovery.
The document does not decide whether to grant that request. Magistrate Judge Katharine H. Parker directed the defendants to respond by noon on August 11, 2022.
The detailed version
- Rivera v. Lettire Construction Corp. · No. 1:21-cv-06006
- Katharine Parker
- Aug. 10, 2022
Background
Plaintiff Roman De Gabriel Rivera, through counsel, submitted a letter asking the court for a temporary, limited protective order. The requested order would allow Rivera to delay producing two audio recordings of statements by non-party witness Guillermo Sanchez Melgarejo until after Melgarejo’s deposition, scheduled for August 15, 2022.
The letter states that the recordings concerned what Melgarejo allegedly saw during the event at issue. Rivera’s counsel said the recordings had not previously been disclosed because Rivera intended to use them only for possible impeachment. Counsel also stated that counsel for non-party witnesses had demanded the statements before the witnesses’ depositions and had indicated that the witnesses would not be produced otherwise.
Arguments in the Request
Rivera argued that producing the recordings before the deposition could allow Melgarejo to tailor his testimony to match the recordings. The letter cited decisions in which courts delayed production of audio or video recordings until after depositions for that reason. Rivera also argued that delaying production would preserve the recordings’ impeachment value while still allowing relevant discovery before trial, and that Melgarejo would not be prejudiced because he participated in the recorded conversations.
Court’s Action
The document does not rule on the requested protective order. Instead, Magistrate Judge Katharine H. Parker directed the defendants to file a response by 12:00 p.m. on August 11, 2022, because of the time-sensitive nature of the request. The text provided does not state a later decision on whether production of the recordings would be delayed.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.