Adams v. The Co Op City Department of Public Safety

Background

Edward P. Adams, representing himself, seeks damages under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a law allowing certain civil-rights claims against state actors, from the Co-Op City Department of Public Safety, RiverBay Corporation, and five individual Co-Op City police officers. His claims concern an allegedly unlawful search, excessive force, false arrest, and malicious prosecution, including alleged fabrication of evidence. The pleadings were settled, and the case was proceeding through discovery.

Adams filed a letter asking the court to require defendants to answer interrogatories—written questions—and respond to requests for production of documents. He also asked the court to impose a sanction and terminate his February 20, 2024 deposition because defendants had not timely responded. Defendants asked for more time to respond and sought a protective order, which is a court order limiting or preventing improper discovery.

Court’s analysis

The court found that defendants’ interrogatory responses were due January 25, 2024. It also found that Adams did not make the required good-faith effort to meet and confer before seeking court intervention. His email, sent at 1:44 a.m. on a Saturday, followed by a court filing later that morning, did not satisfy that requirement. The court nevertheless addressed the substance of the discovery dispute because further delay would not promote efficiency.

The court ruled that defendants must answer interrogatories that comply with Local Civil Rule 33.3(a), which limits interrogatories at the start of discovery to subjects such as knowledgeable witnesses, damages calculations, and relevant documents or physical evidence. Defendants also had to respond to the requests for production and produce nonprivileged documents responsive to unobjectionable requests by February 16, 2024.

The court excluded several interrogatories because they were outside the permitted scope, unintelligible, or sought general legal definitions rather than case-related information. Defendants also did not have to produce detailed financial statements for RiverBay Corporation or total earnings statements for the individual defendants because the court found those requests plainly outside the relevant discovery scope.

The court directed defendants to respond to requests for admissions served by the applicable cutoff date by February 26, 2024, rather than responding piecemeal on several different dates. It also explained that requests for admissions must be simple and direct and need not be answered when vague or ambiguous.

Rulings and warnings

The court explained that the rule allowing a party to compel discovery did not authorize the requested discovery sanction in these circumstances. Sanctions for disobeying a discovery order generally require a prior order directing compliance and a failure to comply with that order. Adams’s request to terminate his February 20 deposition was therefore premature and, according to the court, lacked merit because any later sanction would have to relate to a specific failure to comply with the court’s discovery order.

The court stated that Adams’s motion to compel discovery and for sanctions was GRANTED IN PART, and defendants’ cross-motion for an extension and protective order was also GRANTED IN PART. Defendants were ordered to respond to the covered interrogatories and document requests by February 16, 2024, subject to the stated exclusions, and to respond to the covered requests for admissions by February 26, 2024. The order states that all relief not expressly granted was denied.

The court warned Adams and defense counsel that they must cooperate, communicate courteously, follow the permitted motion schedule, and avoid piecemeal supplemental filings and abusive language. It warned that continued misconduct could lead to sanctions. The order addressed discovery and case management; it did not resolve the merits of Adams’s civil-rights claims.