Lynch et al v. DeMarco et al
Filing
683
ENDORSED ORDER Re: 682 PLAINTIFFS' CLARIFICATION MOTION; Upon consideration of Plaintiffs' instant Clarification Motion (ECF No. 682), said Motion is GRANTED. The County may call: (1) Joseph Morris; (2) Jeff Stafford; and (3) Dominick Aprile, but ONLY IF the Late-Identified County Witnesses are first produced for depositions as requested by Plaintiffs in the instant Clarification Motion. If a Late-Identified County Witness is NOT produced for deposition, the County shall be precl uded from calling that individual as a witness. Further, the County is "to cover all expenses, including witness and attorney travel...,incurred in connection with such depositions." This is "without prejudice to any later application for an attorneys' fee award in the event that Plaintiff[s] prevail on the merits of [their] claims." So Ordered by Judge Joanna Seybert on 1/27/2025. (CV)
A&O SHEARMAN
599 Lexington Avenue
New York, NY 10022-6069
Tel: +1.212.848.4000
Fax: +1.212.848.7179
benjamin.klebanoff@aoshearman.com
212.848.7316
Via CM/ECF
January 24, 2025
ENDORSED ORDER
re: PLAINTIFFS’
CLARIFICATION MOTION
(see below)
Hon Joanna Seybert
Hon. Anne Shields
United States District Court, Eastern District of New York
100 Federal Plaza, Central Islip, NY 11722
RE:
Butler v. Suffolk County, No. 11-cv-02602 (JS) (AYS)
Letter for Clarification Regarding and Depositions of County’s Belatedly Disclosed
Witnesses
Dear Judge Seybert and Judge Shields:
At the final pretrial conference today, the Court granted in part Plaintiffs’ motion in
limine to preclude the County from calling as trial witnesses its belatedly disclosed witnesses.
For context, after the close of discovery, the County disclosed five trial witnesses who have not
been deposed, and one of whom never appeared on the County’s pretrial disclosures until
September 2024. Three of the five witnesses—Joseph Morris, Jeff Stafford, and Dominque
Aprile—are alive, while two—Thomas Barrett and John Lowry—are deceased. The Court’s
Minute Order and comments during hearing suggest the County will be permitted to elicit
testimony from Messrs. Morris, Aprile, and Barrett. See ECF No. 680 at 5. The Court noted
during the hearing that the ruling related to Mr. Aprile was, in part, tied to Judge Shields’ ruling
allowing the photographs that he took to be used as trial exhibits.
Plaintiffs respectfully request the Court clarify whether the Court intended to allow
testimony from all three of the County’s living, belatedly disclosed witnesses (since Mr. Barrett
remains deceased), and, if so, requests leave to depose those living witnesses (i.e., Messrs.
Aprile, Morris, and Stafford) prior to permitting their trial testimony.
As set forth in Plaintiffs’ motion, during the initial discovery period, Plaintiffs had
repeatedly sought to depose Mr. Stafford and otherwise sought and received the assurances from
the County that Plaintiffs had deposed everyone whom the County intended to call to testify at
trial. ECF No. 645 at 3–5. The County only disclosed Mr. Aprile as a witness in September
2024, following the completion of supplemental discovery. Id. at 5–6. Plaintiffs requested that,
in the event the Court permitted trial testimony from these belatedly disclosed witnesses,
Plaintiffs be allowed to depose them before trial. See id. at 8–9. The Court did not address that
aspect of Plaintiffs’ motion. See ECF No. 680 at 5.
AOSHEARMAN.COM
Allen Overy Shearman Sterling US LLP is a limited liability partnership organized under the laws of the State of Delaware. Allen Overy Shearman Sterling US LLP is affiliated with
Allen Overy Shearman Sterling LLP, a limited liability partnership registered in England and Wales with registered number OC306763 and with its registered office at One Bishops
Square, London E1 6AD. It is authorized and regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority of England and Wales (SRA number 401323). The term partner is used to refer to a
member of Allen Overy Shearman Sterling LLP or an employee or consultant with equivalent standing and qualifications. A list of the members of Allen Overy Shearman Sterling
LLP and of the non-members who are designated as partners is open to inspection at its registered office at One Bishops Square, London E1 6AD.
AMERICAS/2024443729.4
January 24, 2025
With a few weeks left before trial, there is still sufficient time for Plaintiffs to take the
depositions of the belated disclosed witnesses to learn the scope of their testimony and avoid any
unfair surprise that would otherwise result. E.g., McEnery v. City of N.Y., 2007 WL 1574013, at
*2–3 (S.D.N.Y. May 29, 2007) (concluding that plaintiff should be given opportunity to depose
late-identified witnesses); Lesser v. Wildwood, 2003 WL 22228757, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 29,
2003) (“Defendants are, however, under an obligation to cure any prejudice suffered by the
plaintiffs as a result of defendants’ violation of their discovery obligations. . . . Discovery will be
reopened in order to provide plaintiffs an opportunity to depose [the undisclosed witnesses].”).
The alternative would simply reward the County’s extremely belated disclosure. Plaintiffs foresee
that these depositions would be short, and could be conducted through remote technology,
consistent with other depositions in this case.
For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiffs’ respectfully request the Court clarify the scope of its
ruling regarding the County’s belatedly disclosed witnesses.
Respectfully submitted,
/s/ Benjamin Klebanoff
Benjamin Klebanoff
ENDORSED ORDER:
Upon consideration of Plaintiffs’ instant Clarification Motion (ECF No. 682), said Motion is
GRANTED. The County may call: (1) Joseph Morris; (2) Jeff Stafford; and (3) Dominick
Aprile (hereafter, the “Late-Identified County Witnesses”), but ONLY IF the Late-Identified
County Witnesses are first produced for depositions as requested by Plaintiffs in the instant
Clarification Motion. (See also Reply, ECF No. 645.) If a Late-Identified County Witness is
NOT produced for deposition, the County shall be precluded from calling that individual as a
witness. Further, the County is “to cover all expenses, including witness and attorney travel . . . ,
incurred in connection with such depositions.” Tirado v. Shutt, No. 13 CV-2848, 2015 WL
6866265, at *10 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 9, 2015); (see also Reply, ECF No. 645, at 8-9). This is “without
prejudice to any later application for an attorneys’ fee award in the event that Plaintiff[s]
prevail[]on the merits of [their] claims.” Id. at *10 n.12.
SO ORDERED this 27th day of January 27, 2025 at Central Islip, New York.
_/s/ JOANNA SEYBERT_____
Joanna Seybert, U.S.D.J., E.D.N.Y.
Page 2 of 2
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?