Jones v. The City Of New York

Background

The defendants moved to bifurcate—that is, separate—the plaintiffs’ claims against the municipal defendants from their claims against the individually named defendants. The motion concerned claims under Monell v. Department of Social Services of the City of New York, which addresses when a municipality may be held responsible for constitutional violations. In the alternative, the defendants asked the court to stay, or pause, discovery on the Monell claims until other fact discovery was completed.

Arguments

The City Defendants argued that separating or pausing Monell discovery would avoid unnecessary time and expense because the City’s liability was contingent on a finding that an individual defendant violated the plaintiff’s constitutional rights. They also argued that Monell discovery would be time-consuming and would prevent them from devoting resources to meaningful settlement discussions.

Court’s Analysis

The court explained that separating discovery may be used to avoid unfairness or promote efficiency, and that the decision rests within the trial court’s discretion. The party requesting separation bears the burden of showing that it is justified.

The court rejected the defendants’ arguments. It found no credible reason that the City Defendants could not conduct Monell discovery while also engaging in settlement discussions. The court also concluded that the resources needed for this discovery would be minimal, or at least less than usual, because the City Defendants acknowledged that discovery about the same subjects and protests was already continuing in consolidated cases.

Ruling

Judge Mary Kay Vyskocil denied the defendants’ motion to bifurcate or stay Monell discovery. The court also requested that the clerk close the motion listed at ECF No. 34.