IN RE: NEW YORK CITY POLICING DURING SUMMER 2020 DEMONSTRATIONS

Background

The court received letters about proposed depositions of former Mayor Bill de Blasio and former Police Commissioner Dermot Shea. The parties informed the court that they had reached an agreement concerning Shea’s deposition. The order therefore addressed only plaintiffs’ request to depose de Blasio.

Legal standard

The court applied the rule that a current or former high-ranking government official ordinarily should not be deposed about the reasons for official action unless exceptional circumstances exist. To establish such circumstances, the requesting party must identify the information sought with particularity and show either that the official has unique firsthand knowledge relevant to the claims or that the necessary information cannot be obtained through other, less burdensome means. The information must also be relevant and proportional to the needs of the case under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(1).

Plaintiffs’ arguments

Plaintiffs argued that de Blasio’s testimony was centrally important to their claims concerning municipal liability under Monell v. Department of Social Services. They said they needed to learn about his awareness of and personal involvement in approving policing policies, information he received from the Police Commissioner and senior police officials, and the strategies and tactics he approved concerning the Mott Haven protest. Plaintiffs also pointed to evidence that de Blasio was regularly informed about or personally approved certain policing strategies and that one witness recalled his involvement but could not remember specific details.

Court’s analysis

The court rejected the argument that de Blasio could be deposed merely because he was a policymaker. It reasoned that municipal liability could be established by showing that the challenged decisions were made by municipal officials with decision-making authority. Plaintiffs could seek that information from the police chain of command, including higher-level commanders. The court further stated that de Blasio’s involvement in discussing, approving, or directing changes in policing strategies did not show that his testimony was relevant or necessary to determine what strategies were actually carried out or whether they were constitutional.

Regarding the Mott Haven protest, the court found that plaintiffs had other sources for information about the policing plan and its execution, including video evidence and New York City Police Department officials who implemented or were offered the opportunity to testify about the decisions. Plaintiffs therefore had not shown that de Blasio possessed unique knowledge relevant to an important issue or that his testimony was otherwise necessary.

Disposition

The court held that this was not an exceptional case warranting the deposition of a former mayor. It granted the application to quash former Mayor de Blasio’s deposition.