Corley v. Vance et al
ORDER granting 368 Letter Motion for Discovery. The Court is in receipt of the NYPD Defendants' letter regarding Officer Gregory Smith. The Court accepts Defendants' representation that the individual in question was not involved i n the NYPD's arrest or prosecution of Plaintiff, and that Defendants do not intend to rely on any information from the individual in this action. Therefore, the Court GRANTS Defendants' request that it be relieved from providing further information to Plaintiff about Officer Gregory Smith. (Signed by Judge Katherine Polk Failla on 3/11/2020) (mro)
THE CITY OF NEW YORK
JAMES E. JOHNSON
100 CHURCH STREET
NEW YORK, NY 10007
AMATULLAH K. BOOTH
Tel.: (212) 356-3534
Fax: (212) 356-3509
March 10, 2020
Honorable Katherine Polk Failla
United States District Judge
United States District Court
Southern District of New York
40 Foley Square
New York, New York 10007
Royce Corley v Vance, et al
I am the Senior Counsel in the Office of James E. Johnson, Corporation Counsel of the
City of New York, assigned to represent defendants Conroy, Daly, Woods, Sterling, Cavallo,
Smith, and Hyman, in the above-referenced matter. Defendants submit this letter concerning our
response to Plaintiff’s December 10, 2019 motion to compel, pursuant to the Court’s February
11, 2020 Decision and Order. See Docket Entry No. 358.
On February 11, 2020, the Court Ordered Defendants to provide a response to Plaintiff by
March 10, 2020, concerning seven of the requests contained in Plaintiff’s motion to compel. In
accordance with the Court’s Order, on March 10, 2020, Defendants provided responses to the
requests outlined in the Court’s order.
As it relates to Claim No. 11 of Plaintiff’s motion to compel, related to Plaintiff’s
request for Defendants to:
“Identity of Police Officer Greg(ory) Smith from the Initial Disclosures provided by
NYPD/OSE, Plaintiff was provided with “Excerpts of Officer Gregory Smith's Memo
Book” (Exhibit A-1, Bates Nos. DEF 6- 8, dated Jan. 25, 2012). On or around
November 2013, Plaintiff was informed by his Private Investigator that the Police
Officer Gregory Smith referenced in the Complaint was "no longer with the NYPD;"
which caused Plaintiff to question the identity of Officer Smith. Plaintiff then e-mail
NYPD to confirm the identity of Greg(ory) Smith, in which they responded by
stating: "I am in receipt of your message concerning Officer Gregory Smith. I am in
the process of researching this matter. I hope to have additional information for you
sometime next week" (e-mail msg. 1-3, dated Jun. 30 & Jul. 19, 2019). After over
four (4) months, NYPD has yet to confirm his identity. Officer Smith's true identity is
necessary to conduct a proper deposition of him, specifically with regard to his
conversations with Jenna and his coordination with NYPD Vice to frame the Plaintiff
(see Exhibit F, excerpts from United States v. Corley, GX-74B: pp. 325, 335- 339,
341-345). Plaintiff also learned from publicly-available records from Facebook that
Jenna a/k/a “Charlie Red” is still friends with “Greg Smith” whom attended “St.
John's University” (see Exhibit M).”
The Court ordered NYPD Defendants to respond to Plaintiff's request for the
identification of an Officer Gregory Smith. Upon further review of the instant action however,
Defendants learned, upon information and belief that Gregory Smith was not involved in
NYPD’s arrest and prosecution of Plaintiff, concerning the remaining claims in Plaintiff’s
Complaint. As referenced in Exhibit G of Plaintiff’s December 10, 2019 motion to compel, an
officer Gregory Smith was involved in the criminal prosecution of Nathaniel Jackson, under
People v. Nathaniel Jackson, under Indictment No. 4157-2011 that was pending in the New
York Supreme Court. Upon information and belief, the Gregory Smith that is referenced in
Plaintiff’s Exhibit G was not involved in Plaintiff’s underlying criminal matter, which is at issue
in the instant action.
Moreover, Defendants no longer intend to rely on an officer Gregory Smith as a witness
in the instant matter. Upon information and belief, he was not a member of the law enforcement
team that investigated Plaintiff’s underlying criminal matter that is at issue in Plaintiff’s
The foregoing information has been provided to Plaintiff. Defendants however, also
respectfully request to be relieved from providing a further response to that portion of the
Court’s February 11, 2020 Order.
Defendants thank the Court for its consideration herein.
AMATULLAH K. BOOTH
Special Federal Litigation Division
BY FIRST CLASS MAIL
104 Gold Street
Brooklyn, New York 11201
The Court is in receipt of the NYPD Defendants' letter regarding Officer
Gregory Smith. The Court accepts Defendants' representation that the
individual in question was not involved in the NYPD's arrest or prosecution of
Plaintiff, and that Defendants do not intend to rely on any information from
the individual in this action. Therefore, the Court GRANTS Defendants'
request that it be relieved from providing further information to Plaintiff
about Officer Gregory Smith.
March 11, 2020
New York, New York
HON. KATHERINE POLK FAILLA
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
A copy of this Order was mailed by Chambers to:
104 Gold Street
Brooklyn, NY 11201
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?