Ingram v. City of New York

Nature of the Document

The readable portion of the provided text is a September 21, 2023 letter from Caroline McGuire, an Assistant Corporation Counsel assigned to defend the matter. The letter asks Judge Naomi Reice Buchwald to issue a protective order concerning Ingram’s amended Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30(b)(6) deposition notice. A protective order can limit or change discovery to prevent undue burden or expense. The court’s endorsement appears partly unreadable in the provided text.

Background

According to the letter, Ingram alleges that Detective Martins, formerly identified as Detective LaFurno, fabricated an allegation that he yelled into her ear with a megaphone during a June 14, 2020 protest in Times Square. He also alleges that other defendants used excessive force when attempting to apprehend him at his residence on August 7, 2020. The letter states that Ingram surrendered to the Midtown North Precinct on August 8, 2020.

The letter states that Ingram did not assert an independent municipal-liability claim or similar claim against the City of New York. Instead, it says that the City is a defendant under respondeat superior, a legal theory under which an employer may be held responsible for an employee’s conduct. The letter further states that Ingram’s case includes claims concerning individual defendants.

Discovery Request

Ingram served a Rule 30(b)(6) deposition notice on July 24, 2023, and later served an amended notice on August 31, 2023. Rule 30(b)(6) permits a party to depose an organization through one or more people designated to testify about information known or reasonably available to the organization. The letter states that the amended notice would require at least ten witnesses and sought testimony from the City about underlying facts, internal New York City Police Department investigations, policies and practices, and other subjects.

The defense argued that the City was not an appropriate Rule 30(b)(6) witness for testimony about the underlying facts because, in its view, the City was not an independent actor under Ingram’s pleaded claims. The defense also argued that some requested topics were unrelated to any claim or defense. As an example, it cited facial-recognition technology, which the letter says Ingram alleged had been used but was not a basis for which he sought relief.

The defense further argued that portions of the notice duplicated documents already produced, including an approximately 890-page Civilian Complaint Review Board report, recordings, and New York City Police Department patrol-guide sections. It also argued that testimony about department policies and practices was unnecessary because the written policies had already been exchanged and Ingram had questioned individual defendants about their understanding of those policies during their depositions.

Legal Standard Cited

The letter cites Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c)(1)(C), which permits a court, for good cause, to prescribe a discovery method different from the one selected by the requesting party. It also cites Rule 26(b)(1), which limits discovery to nonprivileged information relevant to a claim or defense and proportional to the needs of the case. The letter describes the court as having broad discretion to decide whether protective relief is appropriate and what protection is required.

Requested Relief and Disposition

The defendants asked the court to grant a protective order. The readable text does not show that Judge Buchwald granted, denied, or otherwise disposed of that request. Because the court’s endorsement is incomplete or illegible in the provided material, no definitive ruling can be stated.