Azzarmi v. 55 Fulton Market

Nature of the order

The court reviewed the parties’ competing letter-motions concerning discovery. It granted in part and denied in part those motions. This was a discovery order and did not resolve the merits of the plaintiff’s claims.

Background

The opinion states that the plaintiff alleges that, on October 20, 2019, while shopping in a grocery store operated by 55 Fulton Market, Angel Parma, identified as a store manager, loudly accused her of being a known shoplifter in front of shoppers and employees. The plaintiff also alleges that she later discussed the incident with store managers Jin Kim and Sharmin Chaitram, and that a friend spoke with Parma, who allegedly admitted mistaking the plaintiff for someone else. The defendants have maintained that the alleged encounters with Parma, Kim, and Chaitram did not occur.

Witness disclosures

The court ordered both sides to supplement their initial witness disclosures under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26. The defendants had to identify in writing the subjects of discoverable information known by Parma, Kim, and Chaitram. The plaintiff likewise had to identify the subjects of discoverable information known by the witnesses she listed. The court noted that the plaintiff’s most recent supplemental disclosures listed no witnesses, including the plaintiff herself, and cautioned that testimony from witnesses not properly disclosed could be excluded under Rule 37.

Depositions

The defendants were not required to produce Jin Kim, a nonparty former employee, for deposition. If the plaintiff wanted to depose Kim, she had to serve Kim with a subpoena and the legally required attendance fee and mileage.

The plaintiff was permitted to take Parma’s deposition beginning at noon on September 7, 2022, as scheduled. The plaintiff was responsible for providing a certified Spanish-English interpreter and confirming the interpreter’s identity and contact information by noon the day before the deposition. If the defendants later called Parma as a trial witness, they would be responsible for providing an interpreter at trial. Questions were to be asked in English, translated into Spanish for Parma, and answered in Spanish with translation into English; the transcript was to be in English.

Unless the parties had agreed to another date and time, the plaintiff had to appear for her video deposition at noon on September 6, 2022. The court stated that, because the plaintiff had conducted every phase of the case in fluent English, she had no basis to request an interpreter and would testify in English.

Production of evidence and documents

The court reminded the plaintiff that she had to produce, in native format, photographs, audio or video recordings, and other images of the grocery store, Parma, or other 55 Fulton Market employees, along with communications through which she received such materials from another person. This obligation applied whether the materials were intended for the plaintiff’s main case or only to challenge testimony.

The plaintiff also had to produce—not merely list—the items identified in specified portions of her initial and supplemental disclosures. She had to provide complete addresses, including apartment numbers, for all listed witnesses. The court cautioned that evidence not produced as required by the discovery rules or court orders, along with related testimony, could be excluded.

Contact information and disposition

The plaintiff was ordered to update her current telephone number, mailing address, and email address because the phone number on the docket was not in service and emails concerning an order requesting volunteer counsel had gone unanswered. All relief not expressly granted was denied.

Magistrate Judge Barbara Moses did not decide whether the alleged store incident occurred or whether the plaintiff would prevail on her claims.