Clark v. City of New York

Background

Magistrate Judge Katharine H. Parker had allowed the City of New York to conduct limited discovery from absent members of the class. The discovery could include depositions of a statistically relevant sample of fifty absent class members. The stated subjects included differences among class members’ religions and genders concerning removal of head coverings, whether removing a head covering for a police photograph imposed a substantial religious burden, and issues related to defenses and possible damages subclasses.

The class was defined as all people who were required to remove a religious head covering for a post-arrest photograph while in New York Police Department custody. Judge Parker placed limits on the depositions’ length, format, and scope and found that the discovery could be narrowed further.

Plaintiffs’ Objections

The plaintiffs objected on four grounds. They argued that the discovery misunderstood the law and the scope of the class, was unnecessary to determine liability, was irrational for establishing damages, and imposed an impermissibly heavy burden on absent class members. They also argued that questioning people about traumatic events and religious practices was improper and that the City’s proposed sampling could not support conclusions about all class members.

The court reviewed the discovery order under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(a). Under that rule, a district judge may modify or set aside a magistrate judge’s order on a non-dispositive matter only if it is clearly erroneous or contrary to law. The court stated that pretrial discovery rulings receive highly deferential review.

Analysis

Judge Torres rejected all four objections. The court concluded that the discovery could concern class-wide issues and that the plaintiffs had not shown that Judge Parker clearly erred by allowing it. The court did not decide at this stage whether the discovery would affect liability, explaining that arguments directed to a future partial-summary-judgment motion were not being resolved in this discovery ruling.

The court also stated that the discovery was not intended to examine the sincerity of individual religious beliefs. Although the discovery could bear on individual damages, the court agreed that the questions might overlap with liability and class issues. The plaintiffs’ disagreement with the City’s litigation strategy did not establish that the discovery was impermissible. Their claims that the discovery imposed an extraordinary burden were also found conclusory in light of the limits placed on the depositions.

The City’s statement that discovery might support a future motion to decertify the class did not result in a ruling on decertification. The court stated that any request to file such a motion had to comply with the judge’s individual practices and was not properly before the court.

Ruling and Schedule

Judge Torres overruled the plaintiffs’ objections to the Discovery Order. She also denied the plaintiffs’ alternative request to stay, or pause, the discovery until the court decided their forthcoming partial-summary-judgment motion. The order required the depositions to be completed by May 8, 2023. It set June 5, 2023, for the plaintiffs’ motion; June 26, 2023, for the City’s opposition; and July 10, 2023, for the plaintiffs’ reply, if any. The order did not decide the underlying liability issues.