Sabino v. Port Authority Police Department

Background

Pro se plaintiff Saul Sabino filed four motions during discovery in his action against the Port Authority Police Department and other defendants. He asked the court to require defendants’ attorney to add New York City Health + Hospitals Corp. and Correctional Health Services to a proposed subpoena; renewed his request for appointment of pro bono counsel; sought sanctions and related relief based on alleged lies, deception, collusion, and abusive deposition practices; and requested 30 additional days to review and correct his deposition transcript because of pain from nerve damage in his right hand.

Sabino’s depositions occurred by videoconference on November 1 and December 20, 2022, while he was detained at Rikers Island. During the first session, he objected to questions about his prior criminal convictions and stopped answering. During the second session, he provided substantial testimony about the August 10, 2020 arrest underlying his claims, his injuries, and his medical treatment, but refused to say whether he had pleaded guilty to charges from that arrest. The court later allowed defendants to establish facts about his prior convictions after they submitted documentary evidence.

Rulings

The court denied as moot the motion concerning the subpoena. It had already approved the proposed subpoena addressed to Bellevue Hospital and later approved an updated subpoena, and Sabino had made no further request to send a subpoena to Health + Hospitals Corp. or Correctional Health Services.

The court denied Sabino’s renewed motion for appointment of pro bono counsel for the same reason previously given by the District Judge: Sabino had not shown that his claim was sufficiently meritorious to justify using volunteer attorney time. The court noted that it had referred him to the New York Legal Assistance Group for assistance with services available to incarcerated civil litigants.

The court denied the sanctions motion after reviewing the deposition transcripts and the remaining discovery record. It found no evidence of misconduct by defendants’ counsel.

The court granted Sabino’s motion for an extension of time to review and correct his deposition transcripts under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30(e)(1). If he wished to make changes, he had to sign a statement listing each change and the reason for it and serve the statement on defendants’ counsel by April 17, 2023. The court explained that any corrected testimony would not eliminate the original answers; the original testimony would remain part of the record and could be used at trial. Judge Barbara Moses also directed that another copy of the complete deposition transcripts be mailed to Sabino and directed the Clerk of Court to close the motions at Dockets 97, 130, and 131.