Azzarmi v. 55 Fulton Market

Background

Aasir Azzarmi filed a letter-motion seeking several forms of relief in a case concerning allegations that grocery store manager Angel Parma falsely accused her of shoplifting in front of other customers on October 20, 2019, and that she was later denied entrance to the same store based on that accusation. The court also addressed a separate request by defendants for telephone numbers for nonparty witnesses Stephanie Acosta and Teresa Sorrento.

Rulings on Azzarmi’s Requests

Documents about Azzarmi and shoplifting. To the extent Azzarmi sought to compel defendants to produce documents described in a prior August 2, 2022 order, the court denied the request. It cited her failure to comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(a)(1), Local Civil Rule 37.2, and the court’s individual practices. It also held that her unsupported speculation that responsive documents existed was not enough. The court stated that Azzarmi could explore the issue at defendants’ depositions.

Video-surveillance documents. The court denied Azzarmi’s request for documents about video cameras and the storage, processing, deletion, or retention of video information before a corporate deposition. The court cited the same discovery-procedure failures, the lateness of the request under the case-management order, and her failure to show that she had previously requested the materials under Rule 34. The court explained that a party may not begin a discovery request by filing a motion to compel. It again stated that Azzarmi could ask about the issue during defendants’ depositions.

Reconsideration of earlier discovery rulings. To the extent Azzarmi sought reconsideration of rulings made during an August 29 conference or in an August 30 order, the court denied the request. Under Local Civil Rule 6.3, she had not identified matters or controlling decisions that had been presented earlier but overlooked, and she had not otherwise met the strict standard for reconsideration. The court also stated that her appearance, clothing, and means of locomotion at the time of the alleged events were relevant to the parties’ claims and defenses and could be explored at deposition. It added that she could be questioned about statements inconsistent with her assertion that she appeared at the time of the events as she did in court on August 2, 2022.

Fifth Amendment and protective-order requests. To the extent Azzarmi sought a protective order allowing her to invoke the constitutional privilege against self-incrimination extensively during her upcoming deposition, or sought to prevent the trial judge from giving the jury an adverse-inference instruction, the court denied the request as an improper attempt to obtain an advance ruling on questions that were not ready for decision. The court explained that a witness may refuse to answer a deposition question under the privilege only when she has reasonable cause to fear that the answer could provide the government with evidence for a criminal prosecution, and that the witness bears the burden of showing a real and substantial risk of self-incrimination. The court also noted that a witness generally may not voluntarily testify about a subject and later invoke the privilege to avoid answering questions about that subject.

Abusive language. The court warned Azzarmi again to avoid abusive and inflammatory language about the judiciary. It stated that the present case had nothing to do with her grievances against former employer Delta Air Lines and was not the proper case or venue for litigating those grievances.

Defendants’ Request for Witness Telephone Numbers

The court denied defendants’ request to compel Azzarmi to provide telephone numbers for Stephanie Acosta and Teresa Sorrento. The court had considered and declined the same request during the August 29 conference, and defendants had not met the strict standard for reconsidering that ruling. The court stated that defendants could explore the issue at Azzarmi’s deposition, when she would be under oath.

Disposition and Effect

The order denied the requests described above. It did not resolve the merits of Azzarmi’s defamation allegations or enter a final judgment on those claims.