Bates v. Falco
- Nelson Roman
- 7:21-cv-03009
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 14
In Bates v. Falco, Magistrate Judge Krause denied Defendants’ protective-order motion, with one part denied with prejudice and another without prejudice.
The ruling affected David Bates, Sheriff Louis Falco, III, the County of Rockland, Bates’s counsel, and the potential witnesses Richard McNichol, John Cocuzza, and Jacquelin Millien. It left the underlying First Amendment claim unresolved and determined when and where Defendants could pursue their settlement-enforcement and evidence objections.
What happened
In Bates v. Falco, Sheriff Louis Falco, III and Rockland County asked the court to prevent testimony, affidavits, and arguments about the departures of three former county employees. They argued that a confidential settlement agreement barred that material and that evidence rules could exclude it.
The court denied the motion. It denied with prejudice the part based on the settlement agreement because this case was not the proper forum to interpret or enforce that agreement and the defendants had identified no actual violation. It denied without prejudice the part based on evidence rules because the evidence had not yet been offered; the defendants could raise those objections later during summary-judgment proceedings or before trial.
Magistrate Judge Andrew E. Krause did not decide the underlying First Amendment claim. The case therefore continued, with the court scheduling a later status conference and noting that the parties could pursue further evidence objections at the appropriate stage.
The detailed version
- Bates v. Falco · No. 7:21-cv-03009
- Nelson Roman
- Sept. 27, 2023
Background
David Bates sued Sheriff Louis Falco, III and the County of Rockland under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging a violation of his First Amendment rights. The motion at issue was Defendants’ request for a protective order—a court order limiting the use of information or testimony in litigation.
The dispute concerned testimony about the separations from Rockland County service of Richard McNichol, John Cocuzza, and Jacquelin Millien. Those matters had been addressed in earlier lawsuits that ended through a confidential settlement agreement. Defendants argued that the agreement’s confidentiality and non-disparagement provisions prevented Bates’s counsel from characterizing those separations and prevented the three individuals from providing affidavits or trial testimony about them. Defendants also argued that the testimony should be excluded under Rules 403 and 404 of the Federal Rules of Evidence.
Contract-Based Arguments
The court held that it could not decide whether the settlement agreement barred the proposed arguments or testimony. The settlement agreement was not the subject of Bates’s lawsuit, and the court had not adjudicated the earlier lawsuits in which the settlement was reached. It therefore found no basis for ancillary jurisdiction—the court’s limited authority to resolve matters connected to an earlier case—and no independent federal basis for deciding what amounted to a state-law contract dispute involving people who were not parties to this action. The court stated that Defendants would have to bring a separate action in the appropriate forum if they wanted a ruling on those issues.
The court also noted that Defendants had identified no actual conduct violating the settlement agreement. They were asking for a ruling about possible future affidavits, testimony, or arguments. The court therefore denied with prejudice the part of the protective-order motion seeking to bar Bates’s counsel from making arguments, or McNichol, Cocuzza, and Millien from providing affidavits or testimony, based on the settlement agreement’s confidentiality and non-disparagement provisions.
Evidentiary Arguments
The court found Defendants’ arguments under Rules 403 and 404 premature. Rule 403 permits exclusion of relevant evidence when its probative value is substantially outweighed by unfair prejudice or other specified dangers. Rule 404 generally limits the use of character evidence or evidence of other acts to show that a person acted consistently with that character. The court explained that no testimony or affidavits had yet been offered, so it could not decide their admissibility in advance.
The court stated that Defendants could raise admissibility objections during summary-judgment briefing under Rule 56 or through motions in limine before trial. It therefore denied without prejudice the part of the protective-order motion seeking to bar evidence from McNichol, Cocuzza, and Millien under Rules 403 and 404.
Disposition and Effect
The court denied Defendants’ motion overall, with one part denied with prejudice and another part denied without prejudice. The ruling did not decide the merits of Bates’s First Amendment claim. A telephonic status conference was scheduled for October 6, 2023, to address the completion of discovery and possible settlement-related proceedings.
Read the full 14-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.