Azzarmi v. 55 Fulton Market

Background

This order followed a conference concerning discovery and pretrial matters. The court referred to earlier orders dated August 2 and August 17, 2022. Aasir Azzarmi was required to produce photographs, audio or video recordings, and other images concerning the grocery store operated by 55 Fulton Market, Angel Parma, or other 55 Fulton Market employees. If another person had sent the evidence to Azzarmi, the related email, text message, or other communication also had to be produced.

Discovery and Deposition Requirements

The court changed Azzarmi’s deadline for complying with the earlier production orders to September 2, 2022. If Azzarmi no longer possessed evidence in its original electronic format, the court required production of the earliest version still in Azzarmi’s possession. The court reminded Azzarmi that failing to preserve electronically stored information that should have been preserved for anticipated or ongoing litigation could result in sanctions under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(e).

Defendants’ counsel was ordered to provide the current or last-known telephone number for nonparty witness Shamin Chaitram to Azzarmi’s limited-scope pro bono counsel on an attorneys-eyes-only basis, so counsel could help arrange Chaitram’s deposition. The court also reminded Azzarmi that a deposition notice had to be served on all other parties before a deposition. If a subpoena requiring documents was served on a witness, the subpoena had to be served on each party along with the deposition notice before being served on the witness.

By August 30, 2022, defense counsel and Azzarmi’s limited-scope counsel had to exchange in writing the names and contact information of court reporters, interpreters, and other non-attorney personnel involved in the depositions of Azzarmi and Parma, scheduled for September 6 and 7, respectively. They also had to confirm whether each deposition would occur by video conference or in person and identify the physical or virtual location.

Motions

The court denied Azzarmi’s motion to compel defendants to provide the job title of each employee on an October 20, 2019 personnel list, identify which employees spoke Spanish, or provide their personal contact information.

The court denied Azzarmi’s motion to strike a filing under Rule 12(f) or obtain a protective order preventing further discussion of Azzarmi’s transgender or disability status. The court explained that Rule 12(f) applies only to pleadings. It also determined that Azzarmi’s appearance, dress, and manner of movement at the time of the alleged events, and afterward, were relevant to the parties’ claims and defenses and could be explored at a deposition and through other means.

The court denied Azzarmi’s motion to disqualify opposing counsel or take counsel’s deposition. It stated that a lawyer does not become a witness merely by speaking with potential witnesses.

The court denied Azzarmi’s motion to further amend or supplement the complaint. At the conference, Azzarmi explained that the proposed amendment would add attorney Ira Rosenstein as a defendant based on a suspicion that Rosenstein alerted defendants’ counsel to a police bulletin filed in the case. Azzarmi characterized the alleged conduct as defamation. The court stated that the proposed claim involved collateral matters, different factual allegations, and a distinct legal theory from the existing claims. It also found that adding a new defamation claim against a different defendant, concerning events years after those alleged in the amended complaint, would prejudice the existing defendants and would not provide good cause to change the pretrial schedule.

Civility Warning and Disposition

The court cautioned Azzarmi against name-calling and personal attacks on opposing counsel and potential witnesses. It stated that people representing themselves without lawyers, like attorneys, must handle discovery cooperatively and courteously, and warned that abusive and insulting language could lead to significant sanctions.

Magistrate Judge Barbara Moses therefore set the stated discovery and deposition requirements and denied each of the four motions addressed in the order.