Talavera v. City Of New York

Background

The City and the defendants asked for a stay, meaning a temporary pause in the case, while the New York City Department of Correction Investigation Division investigated the allegations concerning Herman Tito Diaz’s death. Although the City requested 60 days, its letter also sought repeated extensions until the investigation ended. Talavera opposed the request, stating that the investigation had already continued for eight months and that the New York City Board of Corrections had completed an investigation and published a detailed report more than six months earlier.

Ruling on the stay and discovery

The court denied the City’s application for a stay. It held that the ongoing investigation did not excuse the defendants from producing documents in response to discovery requests. The court also rejected the argument that a deliberative privilege—a protection for documents reflecting an investigating agency’s thoughts and conclusions—covered all materials related to the incident. Documents created during or immediately after the incident were not deliberative merely because the investigation had not yet ended. The court stated that the Investigation Division could assert the privilege for documents it generated during the investigation, including investigator commentaries and drafts of a final report, but that any such objections would be considered document by document.

The court further stated that the privilege did not prevent witnesses from testifying at depositions. It warned that refusing to produce relevant, non-deliberative documents simply because they were being reviewed in an internal investigation could result in sanctions.

Identifying individual defendants and case schedule

The court rejected the argument that the City’s Corporation Counsel could not decide whether to represent individuals until the investigation ended. However, the court recognized that Corporation Counsel could not make representation decisions for specific individuals until Talavera identified whom she intended to sue. Talavera had named John Doe defendants but had not yet identified them. The court ordered that the unnamed defendants be identified and served within 45 days.

The court issued an order requiring Corporation Counsel to provide, by December 9, 2022, the names and last known addresses of personnel from the Department of Correction and/or the New York City Health and Hospitals Corporation who interacted with Diaz on March 18, 2022, or were on duty in relevant areas of the jail at Rikers Island that day. The order specifically included the “A” post officer, officers who opened doors for Diaz’s transport to the medical clinic, and officers who were supposed to be on duty but were not. The court stated that these identities were not protected by deliberative privilege.

The deadline for filing an answer was stayed for 45 days to allow the response to the court’s identification order and to allow claims to be brought against currently unnamed individual defendants. The initial pretrial conference was set for February 27, 2023, at 10:00 a.m. The court placed the case on an expedited schedule and stated that it would be ready for trial by June 30, 2023; if not, it would receive a trial date anyway, potentially before discovery was complete and with possible sanctions based on missing evidence. The Clerk was directed to remove the City’s stay request, docket number 16, from the list of open motions.