Barkai v. Mendez
- Kenneth Karas
- 7:21-cv-04050
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Barkai v. Mendez, Magistrate Judge McCarthy granted the discovery motion in part and denied it in part.
Ariel Dan Barkai, the defendants, and non-party witness Ayelet Barkai, M.D.
What happened
In Barkai v. Mendez, Ariel Dan Barkai, representing himself, asked to attend a non-party witness’s deposition, require the defendants to conduct it by video, and explain facts to the witness during questioning.
The court allowed Barkai to attend the deposition and directed the defendants to arrange his participation by video or telephone. It denied his request to require the defendants to conduct the deposition by video. The court also denied his request to tell the witness facts before or during questioning and ordered him not to disrupt the deposition.
Judge Judith C. McCarthy granted Barkai’s motion in part and denied it in part. She instructed him not to coach the witness, make speaking objections, debate the case’s facts, or interrupt the lawyers’ questions or the witness’s answers.
The detailed version
- Barkai v. Mendez · No. 7:21-cv-04050
- Kenneth Karas
- May 19, 2023
Background
Ariel Dan Barkai, proceeding without a lawyer, brought this civil-rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against members of the Clarkstown Police Department. He alleged that the defendants violated his constitutional rights, including by taking him into custody after carrying out a mental-health check.
The order addressed Barkai’s letter motion concerning the deposition of non-party Ayelet Barkai, M.D. Barkai asked to attend the deposition, to require the defendants to conduct it by video or provide him with a video link, and to allow him to tell the witness important facts during the deposition.
Court’s Rulings
The court ruled that Barkai could attend Dr. Barkai’s deposition under the Local Civil Rules. It declined to require the defendants to conduct the deposition by video because the defendants could choose the method of deposition. The court nevertheless directed the defendants to arrange for Barkai to participate by video or telephone.
The court denied Barkai’s request to inform Dr. Barkai of facts before she was deposed. It explained that deposition testimony must come from the witness and that Barkai could not coach or otherwise influence the witness’s testimony.
The court also directed Barkai not to disrupt the deposition. It specifically instructed him not to make speaking objections, debate the underlying facts with the defendants, interrupt the lawyers’ questions or the witness’s answers, or tell Dr. Barkai the “most relevant point.” The court stated that any objections by Barkai should be stated simply as “objection.”
Disposition
The court stated that Barkai’s motion was granted in part and denied in part. Barkai was allowed to attend the deposition; his request to require a video deposition was denied; the defendants were directed to arrange his attendance by video or telephone; and he was ordered to refrain from disruptive behavior during the deposition.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.