Outlaw v. City Of New York
- Paul Engelmayer
- 1:22-cv-09288
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Outlaw v. City of New York, Judge Engelmayer denied Outlaw’s requested organizational deposition and allowed two 60-minute NYPD officer depositions to identify defendants.
Dashaun Outlaw, the City of New York, and the unidentified NYPD officers named as defendants. The order determines how Outlaw may seek to identify those officers, allowing two limited depositions and denying the requested organizational deposition.
What happened
In Outlaw v. City Of New York, Dashaun Outlaw sued the City of New York and several unidentified New York Police Department officers under a federal civil-rights law. He alleges false arrest, excessive force, and failure to intervene related to a December 31, 2021 search of his apartment during the arrest of Christopher Jones.
The parties disputed how Outlaw could try to identify the unnamed officers. Outlaw requested a deposition of an organization, apparently the New York Police Department, about the relationship between the department and the U.S. Marshals in fugitive operations. The City instead proposed depositions of two officers who were present at Jones’s arrest, limited to 60 minutes each.
Judge Engelmayer granted the City’s request and denied Outlaw’s request. The court found that Outlaw had not followed the procedural requirements for an organizational deposition and had not shown that his proposed topics would help identify the unnamed officers. The court permitted him to depose the two officers who were on the scene, with each deposition limited to 60 minutes.
The detailed version
- Outlaw v. City Of New York · No. 1:22-cv-09288
- Paul Engelmayer
- Apr. 4, 2024
Background
Dashaun Outlaw brings claims against the City of New York and several unidentified New York Police Department (NYPD) officers under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a federal civil-rights statute. The claims include false arrest, excessive force, and failure to intervene. Outlaw alleges that the officers searched his apartment on December 31, 2021, while arresting non-party Christopher Jones. The parties had not been able to identify the officers involved.
Discovery dispute
Outlaw sought permission to conduct a deposition under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30(b)(6). That rule allows a party to depose an organization about specified matters by identifying the subjects for examination with reasonable particularity and conferring in good faith about those subjects. Outlaw said he wanted to understand the partnership between the NYPD and the U.S. Marshals within the Fugitive Task Force and how the agencies plan and carry out fugitive operations together.
The City proposed a different method: depositions of two NYPD officers who were present at Jones’s arrest, with each deposition limited to 60 minutes.
Court’s analysis
Judge Engelmayer concluded that Outlaw had not met Rule 30(b)(6)’s procedural requirements. He had not served the City with a notice or subpoena, had not described the examination topics with reasonable particularity, and had not conferred in good faith with the City. Outlaw also had not identified the organization he wanted to depose, although the court assumed he meant the NYPD.
The court further concluded that Outlaw’s proposed organizational deposition was unlikely to help identify the unnamed officers. Outlaw did not explain why information about the agencies’ partnership would identify the NYPD officers who participated in the events at issue. By contrast, the court found that depositions of two officers who were personally present at the arrest had substantial potential to identify the unnamed participants.
Disposition
The court granted the City’s request and denied Outlaw’s request to conduct a Rule 30(b)(6) deposition. It permitted Outlaw to depose two NYPD officers who were on the scene for Jones’s arrest, with each deposition limited to 60 minutes.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.