Fernandez v. City Of New York
- Ona Wang
- 1:21-cv-00680
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
Fernandez v. City of New York: Judge Wang denied in part and granted in part a protective-order motion, limiting deposition discovery about use-of-force training.
The ruling affects Barbara Fernandez and the defendants, including the City of New York, by limiting the scope of the defendants’ organizational deposition to training received by the arresting officers.
What happened
In Fernandez v. City of New York, Barbara Fernandez sued the City of New York and other defendants under federal civil-rights laws and New York law. The parties disputed the scope of a deposition topic about training concerning the use of physical force.
The court found the requested training information relevant because the case concerns whether there was probable cause to arrest Fernandez, and an officer’s knowledge of facts supporting a justification defense could affect probable cause. But the court found the request too broad and not proportional to the needs of the case.
Judge Ona T. Wang denied in part and granted in part the defendants’ motion for a protective order. The court limited the topic to training received by the arresting officers and scheduled a post-discovery status conference.
The detailed version
- Fernandez v. City Of New York · No. 1:21-cv-00680
- Ona Wang
- May 16, 2023
Background
Barbara Fernandez brought claims for damages and fees under federal civil-rights statutes, the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments, and New York State law. The parties disputed Topic C in Fernandez’s notice for a deposition of the defendants under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30(b)(6), which allows an organization to be questioned through a designated representative.
Topic C requested information about training received by City agencies concerning New York Penal Law § 35.10 and the justification for using physical force. The defendants moved for a protective order, which is an order limiting or preventing discovery that is improper, overly burdensome, or disproportionate.
Court’s Analysis
The court explained that deposition topics must be relevant to a claim or defense, proportional to the needs of the case, not unduly burdensome or duplicative, and described with reasonable particularity.
The court found Topic C relevant. The parties agreed that the action concerns whether there was probable cause to arrest Fernandez. The court reasoned that an officer’s awareness of facts supporting a justification defense can affect whether probable cause existed. Because New York Penal Law § 35.10 provides a justification defense that can negate the existence of a crime, training concerning that defense could be relevant to the probable-cause issue.
The court nevertheless found Topic C overbroad and not proportional to the needs of the case as written. The court therefore limited the topic to training received by the arresting officers.
Ruling
The court ordered that the defendants’ motion for a protective order under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c)(1) was DENIED in part and GRANTED in part. The court had previously extended the fact-discovery deadline to May 26, 2023, and scheduled a post-discovery status conference for May 31, 2023. It also directed the parties to file a joint proposed agenda and directed the Clerk of Court to close the docket entries for the motion and opposition.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.