Scott Fleming v. The City Of New York

Background

Patricia Scott Fleming, as administratix of Patrick Fleming’s estate, brought federal- and state-law claims against the City of New York and correctional officers (the “City Defendants”), as well as the New York City Health and Hospitals Corporation and medical providers (the “Medical Defendants”). She alleged that Patrick experienced excessive force and medical malpractice during pretrial detention at Rikers Island Correctional Center.

Fleming moved to compel production of discovery supporting her claims against the City under Monell, the doctrine allowing municipal liability for an unconstitutional policy, practice, or custom. The City Defendants asked the court to separate discovery, summary judgment, and trial on the Monell claims from the claims against individual defendants. The Medical Defendants opposed the requested discovery because they argued that it would complicate and delay the case.

Bifurcation

The court denied the City Defendants’ request to bifurcate discovery. It concluded that the City’s potential liability was not based only on the conduct of the individually named defendants. Fleming alleged broader policies and practices involving excessive force against detainees and failures to enforce correctional guidelines. The court therefore determined that the City could potentially face Monell liability even if Fleming could not establish liability against individual defendants.

The court stated that concerns about relevance, proportionality, burden, delay, and jury confusion could be addressed through discovery management, case management, and jury instructions. The City Defendants may renew their request to bifurcate summary judgment or trial later, although the court stated that it was not persuaded by their current arguments.

Document Requests

The City Defendants objected to Requests 2–8, 11, and 12 under New York Criminal Procedure Law § 160.50, which generally seals certain records concerning criminal proceedings terminated in a person’s favor. The court held that federal law governs discovery in this federal-question case. It overruled the objection because Fleming had a demonstrated need for information about excessive-force incidents and the parties’ confidentiality stipulation and proposed protective order addressed privacy concerns. The court also noted that it was unclear whether detention records fall within the state statute.

The court denied Requests 2, 4, 8, and 12 to the extent they sought complete inmate folders for detainees other than Patrick because the information in those folders was irrelevant to Fleming’s claims.

For Request 2, the court ordered production of the requested materials, except for the inmate folder, concerning Inmate 1. It denied the request concerning Inmate 2 because the allegations related to a deliberate-indifference Monell claim that Judge Daniels had previously rejected, rather than Fleming’s excessive-force Monell claim.

For Requests 3 and 5–8, the court ordered production of video footage and other documents concerning alleged use-of-force incidents involving other inmates on specified dates, except for the inmate folders sought in Request 8. The court held that the relevance of an incident did not depend on whether the Department of Correction had labeled the force excessive or substantiated a violation; the underlying facts could help establish whether a municipal policy or custom existed.

For Request 11, the court ordered production of disciplinary records only insofar as they concerned false statements or use of force, and only for individuals named as defendants in the Second Amended Complaint. Other employment-related records were outside the permitted scope.

For Request 12, the court ordered the City Defendants to produce the requested documents concerning inmates involved in use-of-force incidents at Rikers Island from January 1, 2015, through June 30, 2017, for which video surveillance existed. It also ordered production of the materials sought in Request 12(2). The court found that the City Defendants’ assertion that production would take many months, without more detail or a proposed compromise, was insufficient to prevent production.

Attorneys’ Fees and Disposition

Because the motion to compel was granted in part and denied in part, the court applied the rule allowing it to allocate expenses. It determined that each side should bear its own costs and fees, and denied Fleming’s request for attorneys’ fees.

Judge Willis granted in part and denied in part Fleming’s motion to compel, denied the City Defendants’ request for bifurcation, and directed the Clerk of Court to close docket entry 233.