Dominguez v. City of New York
- Katherine Failla
- 1:21-cv-02302
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 5
In Dominguez v. City of New York, Judge Failla ordered some discovery, declined to compel 24 officer affidavits, and denied a sanctions conference.
Steven Dominguez and the City of New York defendants, including the named police officers and defense counsel, were affected by the discovery orders and the denial of a sanctions conference.
What happened
In Steven Dominguez v. City of New York, Dominguez asked the court to require additional information and materials about police body-camera footage and the officers involved in an incident on January 1, 2020. The defendants had already produced some footage and agreed to conduct additional searches and provide certain records.
The requests included precinct and Emergency Services Unit records, identification of officers shown in newly produced videos, statements from defense lawyers about their searches for footage, an affidavit addressing questions about the footage, and a conference about possible sanctions. The defendants opposed some requests and said other information could be obtained through depositions.
The court ordered production of command logs and roll calls, accepted the defendants’ agreement to work toward identifying officers in the videos, and required statements from two defense lawyers and a supplemental affidavit from an employee of the police department’s legal bureau. The court did not require affidavits from the 24 officers and denied the request for a sanctions-and-remedies conference. Judge Katherine P. Failla set November 30, 2022, as the general deadline for producing the required materials.
The detailed version
- Dominguez v. City of New York · No. 1:21-cv-02302
- Katherine Failla
- Nov. 16, 2022
Background
Steven Dominguez asserted claims including false arrest, excessive force, and municipal liability arising from an alleged January 1, 2020 incident. The opinion states that Dominguez had been assaulted and seriously injured at a party and later bit an ankle of a police officer responding to the scene. Dominguez moved to compel discovery concerning body-worn-camera footage, police personnel and operational records, and the identities of officers involved.
The defendants stated that they initially located one responsive body-worn-camera video, then discovered and produced five additional videos on November 9, 2022. They also agreed to provide an updated affidavit about their searches, produce command logs and roll calls for the 75th Precinct and the Emergency Services Unit to the extent those records existed, and work with Dominguez to identify officers shown in the newly produced footage.
Requests for attorney statements and officer affidavits
Dominguez sought statements from Susan Scharfstein, John Schemitsch, and Allison Arenson concerning their searches for footage, the footage they reviewed, the timing of their review, preservation efforts, and alleged contradictory representations. He also sought an affidavit addressing eight questions for each of 24 officers identified in the defendants’ initial disclosures. The defendants objected to statements from Scharfstein and Schemitsch based on attorney work-product protection and argued that many questions were better suited for depositions.
The court found inconsistencies in defense counsel’s representations about efforts to locate body-worn-camera footage. It therefore ordered the defendants to produce statements from Scharfstein and Schemitsch describing the investigative steps each took to identify relevant footage, what footage each reviewed and when, and what steps each took to preserve the footage. The court stated that it trusted the lawyers could answer without disclosing privileged information.
The court also ordered a supplemental affidavit from Arenson, an employee of the police department’s Legal Bureau Body Worn Camera Unit. The affidavit had to respond to questions (1), (2), (3), and (4) listed in the final paragraph of page 3 of Dominguez’s second motion to compel. The court agreed that questions (5), (6), (7), and (8) were better suited for depositions. The court would not compel the 24 officers to provide affidavits at that time and stated that Dominguez could seek information from them through depositions.
Other discovery and sanctions
The court ordered production of command logs and roll calls for the 75th Precinct and the Emergency Services Unit for the relevant time period. If Dominguez wanted additional sources for the names, titles, shield numbers, or addresses of involved officers after receiving those records, the court directed him to confer with the defendants before filing another motion to compel.
The court credited the defendants’ representation that they would work with Dominguez to identify officers appearing in the newly produced videos. Unless otherwise specified, the defendants had to produce the required materials by November 30, 2022.
The court found no basis for sanctions at that time and DENIED Dominguez’s request for a conference to discuss sanctions and remedies. It stated that it would reconsider that position if the parties continued to have disputes of that nature. The Clerk of Court was directed to terminate the motion at docket entry 719.
Read the full 5-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.