Williams v. City of New York

Background

Albert Williams sued the City of New York, “Undercover R.,” and Police Officers John Doe #1-8. He alleged that officers in the New York City Police Department’s Bronx Narcotics Unit arrested and beat him after he refused to sell narcotics to an undercover officer. His claims against the officers included excessive force, false arrest, and racial discrimination under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a federal law allowing claims against state or local officials for certain constitutional violations. He also asserted claims against the City under the rule allowing municipal-liability claims and under the New York State Constitution, alleging a pattern and policy of excessive force and racial discrimination in the Bronx Narcotics Unit.

The City had requested a conference before filing a possible motion to dismiss the claims against it. Williams said he intended to amend his complaint to identify the Doe officers. He also asked the court to compel the City to disclose the identities of two undercover officers, identified as U.C. 382 and U.C. 420, so he could investigate their disciplinary, litigation, and Civilian Complaint Review Board histories for use in the amended complaint. The City argued that the request was untimely and that the identities of the actively undercover officers were protected by the law-enforcement privilege.

Court’s analysis

The court held that the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Local Rule 83.10 did not permit Williams to obtain discovery at that stage merely to add factual support to a future amended municipal-liability claim. Although a court may allow discovery before the ordinary schedule for good cause, the court found that Williams’s desire to avoid the possible need for another amended complaint and conserve resources was not enough. The court also noted that Williams effectively conceded that his municipal-liability claim was adequately pleaded before amendment, which did not show good cause for expedited discovery.

The court declined to depart from the discovery procedures established by Local Rule 83.10. According to the opinion, that rule provides that much of the information Williams sought would be disclosed within 28 days after the first defendant files an answer, and the City intended to follow the rule and disclose the undercover officer’s disciplinary records when appropriate during discovery.

Ruling

The court denied without prejudice Williams’s request to compel disclosure of U.C. 382 and U.C. 420’s identities as premature. “Without prejudice” means the ruling did not permanently bar a later request, but the opinion does not specify when or under what circumstances a renewed request would be granted. The court expressly declined to decide whether the law-enforcement privilege applied to the identities.

The court granted Williams’s request that his amended complaint be due 30 days after resolution of the undercover-officer issue and directed him to file it by August 14, 2023. The City could renew its request for a pre-motion conference if it sought to dismiss the amended complaint.