Belizaire v. City of New York et al

Filing 30

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER granting in part and denying in part 25 Motion to Compel. Plaintiff's motion for a compulsion order is granted in part and denied in part, to the extent indicated in the attached Memorandum and Order. Ordered by Magistrate Judge Roanne L. Mann on 3/13/2013. (Williams, Jennifer)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
------------------------------------------------------------x
ALBERTO BELIZAIRE,
Plaintiff,
-against-

MEMORANDUM
AND ORDER
12-CV-1511 (WFK)

CITY NEW YORK, et al.,
Defendants.
------------------------------------------------------------x
ROANNE L. MANN, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE:
The Court is in receipt of plaintiff’s letter-motion to compel the production of certain
documents, see Motion to Compel (Mar. 7, 2013) (“Pl. Motion”), Electronic Case Filing
Docket Entry (“DE”) #25, and defendants’ objection thereto. See Response in Opposition
(Mar. 11, 2013) (“Def. Opp.”), DE #29. In connection with plaintiff’s demand for Monell
pattern-and-practice discovery (Document Requests Nos. 30, 31, 32, 37), defendants ask this
Court (over plaintiff’s objection) to bifurcate or sever the Monell claim in this action until after
the trial of the individual defendants, and to stay Monell discovery in the interim. See Def.
Opp. at 1-5.
Because it is the role of the trial court to determine whether trial should be bifurcated,
the undersigned magistrate judge consulted with the District Judge assigned to this case, the
Honorable William F. Kuntz, II, who advised that he will not bifurcate the Monell claim.
Consequently, no reason exists for staying Monell discovery.
The remaining disputed items (Document Request Nos. 33 through 36) consist of

training materials and rules and regulations. Whether or not these materials are themselves
admissible, the Court rejects defendants’ contention that such documents are “not reasonably
calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.” Def. Opp. at 6.1 Defendants do,
however, persuasively argue that certain aspects of these demands concern issues that are no
longer in the case. For example, as plaintiff reportedly has agreed to withdraw his claims
concerning his 2011 arrest, see Def. Opp. at 5, plaintiff has no need for training materials in
effect in July 2011. In addition, according to defendants, plaintiff testified at his deposition
that he was not strip-searched subsequent to the 2009 incident. See id. Therefore, he has no
need for materials relating to strip searches, which are among the documents demanded in
Document Request No. 33.
Plaintiff’s motion for a compulsion order is therefore granted in part and denied in part,
to the extent indicated above.
SO ORDERED.
Dated:

Brooklyn, New York
March 13, 2013

Roanne L. Mann

/s/
ROANNE L. MANN
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

1

Although defendants also contend that these demands are “unduly burdensome,” Def. Opp.
at 6, they make no show whatsoever regarding the extent of the burden.
-2-