Bellamy v. City of New York et al

Filing 138

Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Peggy Kuo. Status Conference held on 2/16/2016. Attorney Thomas Hoffman appeared on behalf of plaintiff. Attorney Matthew J. Modafferi appeared on behalf of defendants. Jonat han Hiles, a law student working at the firm of Thomas Hoffman, was also present. Argument was heard on 122 Motion for Protective Order. Motion denied. Details of the Court's ruling are annexed at 138 . The Court allows the depositions of t he witnesses listed on 125 -Exhibit 1 to go forward, except that the number of witnesses is limited to 10. Since plaintiff's counsel has withdrawn Judge Blumenfeld and Robert Masters from the list at this time, plaintiff's counsel must ta ke one more witness off the list. Plaintiff is advised to attempt to limit the number of witnesses further as depositions proceed. Plaintiff is also directed to provide information to defendants' counsel in advance regarding the scope of the pro posed deposition testimony, cases the witness may be asked about, and documents that may be used in the deposition. Plaintiff's oral request to exceed the page limit by filing a twelve (12) page motion to compel discovery is granted. The deadl ine for filing that motion is February 19, 2016. Defendants are also granted leave to file a twelve (12) page response by March 4, 2016. Plaintiff's Motion to Strike Defendants' Reply 129 is denied. The next status conference will be held on March 14, 2016 at 3:00 p.m., in Courtroom 322 North, before Magistrate Judge Peggy Kuo. (Tape #11:24-12:08.) (Feldman, Shira)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
------------------------------------------------------------KAREEM BELLAMY,
Plaintiff,
-againstCITY OF NEW YORK, et al.,
Defendants.
------------------------------------------------------------

x
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
x

ORDER
12-CV-1025 (AMD)(PK)

Peggy Kuo, United States Magistrate Judge:
Defendants have moved this Court for a protective order. Defendants object to plaintiff’s
intended depositions of eleven1 individuals who plaintiff argues have information necessary to his
Monell 2 claim against defendant City of New York. ECF No. 122. Defendants seek the protective
order on the grounds that 1) plaintiff is required to seek these depositions pursuant to Federal Rule
of Civil Procedure 30(b)(6), rather than noticing depositions pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 30(a); 2) that the depositions plaintiff seeks are insufficiently relevant; and 3) that the
requests for the depositions are disproportionately burdensome to defendants relative to plaintiff’s
claims and the needs of the case. Id.
Defendants’ motion is denied. The use of Rule 30(b)(6) is not mandatory. Instead, it is just
one option available to the party seeking to depose an organization. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(b)(6),
Advisory Comm. Notes (1970 Amendment) (“This procedure supplements the existing
practice….The new procedure should be viewed as an added facility for discovery….”). See also

Plaintiff initially noticed thirteen witnesses, but has deferred his requests for two of those depositions. See ECF Nos.
125, 135.
2 See Monell v. Dep’t of Soc. Servs., 436 U.S. 658 (1978).
1

Rinscott Corp. v. Fine Arts Funding Inc., No. 80-cv-6779 (RLC), 1981 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15868, at
*2-3 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 17, 1981). Plaintiff’s use of Rule 30(a) is proper.
Plaintiff also has established that the requested depositions are relevant and not overly
prejudicial. Plaintiff has adequately explained the information he expects each noticed deponent to
provide and its relevance to the Monell claims.
Finally, the depositions are not disproportionately burdensome. The Court has instructed
plaintiff to convey to defendants before each deposition the topics to be covered, the cases to be
discussed, and the documents to be used, thereby narrowing the scope of the depositions and
ensuring that they are proportional to the needs of the case. Discovery in this case was bifurcated
between the Monell and non-Monell claims, and these are the first depositions plaintiff is seeking on
the Monell claims. 3 Further, the Court has instructed plaintiff to withdraw one deposition notice in
order to bring the number of depositions down to ten. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(a).
Defendants have not established good cause for a protective order as required by Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c)(1). Defendants’ motion is denied.
SO ORDERED:

Peggy Kuo

PEGGY KUO
United States Magistrate Judge
Dated: Brooklyn, New York
February 18, 2016

Because discovery was bifurcated, witnesses were not asked questions with regard to the Monell claims during the nonMonell phase of discovery.
3