Lurch, Jr. v. Doe
- Vernon Broderick
- 1:22-cv-02324
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Lurch, Jr. v. Doe, Judge Broderick denied without prejudice a request for body-camera footage until officers were identified.
Robert Derek Lurch, Jr.; the unidentified police officers, doctor, and nurse sued in the case; and the City of New York's law department, which was directed to provide identification-related status information.
What happened
Robert Derek Lurch, Jr. sued four unidentified people under a federal civil-rights law: two police officers, a doctor, and a nurse. The court asked New York City's law department to help identify them.
The law department said it could not yet identify the officers or determine whether body-camera footage existed. It had received a release related to Lurch's criminal records but still needed adequate medical-record releases for the doctor and nurse. The City also said it was not a party and did not represent any identified defendants.
Judge Vernon S. Broderick denied Lurch's request to preserve and disclose the body-camera footage without prejudice. The order said Lurch may renew the request after the City identifies the officers, and directed the City's counsel to provide a status update after receiving the required information or by September 30, 2022.
The detailed version
- Lurch, Jr. v. Doe · No. 1:22-cv-02324
- Vernon Broderick
- Aug. 19, 2022
Background
Robert Derek Lurch, Jr. brought a case under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against four unidentified individuals: two police officers, a doctor, and a nurse. The court previously ordered the City of New York's law department to help identify the John Doe defendants under the procedure described in Valentin v. Dinkins. The court later extended the City's time to comply, starting when it received fully executed releases for Lurch's criminal and medical records.
Lurch moved to compel the defendants to preserve and disclose body-worn-camera footage from the incident. The City law department responded that it was not a party to the case and did not represent any named defendant. It also stated that it had not yet been able to identify the police officers because it had only recently received Lurch's criminal-record release. The office said it lacked sufficient medical-record releases to identify the doctor and nurse. Until the officers were identified, it also could not determine whether body-camera footage existed.
Ruling
Judge Vernon S. Broderick denied Lurch's motion to compel preservation and disclosure of the body-camera footage without prejudice. The order allows Lurch to renew the request once the City identifies the John Doe officers. The court also ordered the City's Corporation Counsel to provide a status update after receiving all required information and triggering the 60-day identification period, or on September 30, 2022, if the information had not been provided by then.
Effect of the Order
The order resolved only Lurch's request concerning the body-camera footage. It did not identify the John Doe defendants or decide the underlying civil-rights claims.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.