D.J.C.V. v. United States
- Paul Engelmayer
- 1:20-cv-05747
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In D.J.C.V. v. United States, Judge Engelmayer limited jurisdictional discovery, authorized two national-level witnesses’ testimony, and terminated the pending motion.
The order affects G.C. and D.J.C.V., the United States, and the lawyers and witnesses involved in the jurisdictional discovery.
What happened
In D.J.C.V. v. United States, the court addressed a dispute about depositions of national-policy witnesses. The discovery was meant to help decide whether G.C. and D.J.C.V. were separated under the Zero Tolerance Policy or because of G.C.’s criminal history.
The court authorized testimony from Deputy Chief Matthew Roggow, including testimony in an organizational-representative capacity on two specified topics, and written answers from Chief Hastings to up to 15 questions. It did not authorize additional national-level testimony at that time, although the plaintiffs could request more if the authorized discovery revealed relevant evidence.
Judge Engelmayer directed the lawyers to promptly schedule the authorized testimony and directed the Clerk to terminate the motion at docket 147.
The detailed version
- D.J.C.V. v. United States · No. 1:20-cv-05747
- Paul Engelmayer
- Jan. 13, 2023
Background
The court reviewed the parties’ letters concerning a discovery dispute over the scope of deposition testimony from national-policy witnesses. The limited discovery was intended to help the court resolve an outstanding jurisdictional issue: whether G.C. and D.J.C.V. were separated pursuant to the Zero Tolerance Policy or because of G.C.’s criminal history.
Court’s Analysis
The court explained that district courts have broad discretion over jurisdictional discovery—discovery intended to develop facts relevant to whether the court has authority to hear a case. Such discovery must be relevant, proportionate, and not unduly burdensome. The court generally agreed with the Government that national-level personnel without a connection to the plaintiffs’ circumstances or to the RGV Sector were unlikely to have useful evidence on this narrow, case-specific issue. Without a concrete showing of relevance, additional depositions could impose burdens that outweighed their benefits.
Ruling
The court authorized the two items of national-level testimony the Government offered as a compromise: testimony from Deputy Chief Matthew Roggow, which the court understood would include testimony in an organizational-representative capacity under Rule 30(b)(6) on the two topics identified in the plaintiffs’ January 6, 2023 letter, and written testimonial responses from Chief Hastings to up to 15 questions. The court did not authorize additional testimony from national-level personnel at that time and did not presently expect to authorize more. It stated that the plaintiffs could seek additional national-level testimony if the authorized discovery concretely revealed other evidence known to national-level personnel concerning the basis for the separation, such as their involvement in a decision to separate the plaintiffs.
Judge Engelmayer directed counsel to promptly confer and establish a schedule for the authorized testimony. He also directed the Clerk of Court to terminate the motion pending at docket 147. The order did not disturb agreements counsel had reached about undisputed areas of testimony, including the Government’s agreement to allow depositions of two line agents who dealt with the plaintiffs when they entered the United States.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.