Winfield et al v. City Of New York

Filing 836

OPINION AND ORDER ON MISCELLANEOUS DISCOVERY MOTIONS AND SCHEDULING ORDER re: 828 LETTER MOTION for Discovery related to ECF 799 documents addressed to Magistrate Judge Katharine H. Parker from Craig Gurian dated October 31, 2019 fil ed by Emmanuella Senat, Shauna Noel, 829 LETTER MOTION for Discovery related to CHPC report addressed to Magistrate Judge Katharine H. Parker from Craig Gurian dated October 31, 2019 filed by Emmanuella Senat, Shauna Noel. On October 31, 2019, Plaintiffs filed two letter motions requesting: (1) that the Court compel the City to produce a survey (and survey reactions) referenced in a document bearing Bates No. 191679, (2) that the Court compel Plaintiffs to search for and produce all documents concerning the "messaging recommendations" set forth in the document bearing Bates No. 191679, (3) that the Court order the City to search for and produce all documents concerning a "CB preference memo " referred to in a document bearing Bates No. 206745, (4) that the Court order the City to search for and produce all documents concerning the Citizens Housing & Planning Council for the period March 1, 2019 to the present; and (5) that the Court order the City to produce a draft internal survey regarding the Community Preference Policy referenced in a document bearing Bates No. 206749. With regard to item (1), the City has represented that it has conducted a diligent searc h but had no luck in locating the survey. The City is willing to reach out to a consultant who worked on the survey. Because it is not burdensome, the Court directs the City to request a copy of the survey from the consultant and produce the surv ey by November 27, 2019 to the extent the consultant has maintained a copy of it. With regard to Item (2), the City has represented that the documents requested fall within the documents already collected and reviewed and, thus, the C ity has exhausted its search for such documents. The City notes that it has produced documents falling within Plaintiffs requests including power point presentations and talking points reflecting the messaging used by the City. The Court finds t hat the City has met its burden and that the burdens of conducting another search to find possible additional documents on the topic that weren't already produced is not proportional to the needs of the case. The City has collected documents from over 55 custodians and expended substantial resources in reviewing and producing them. Additionally, because of several rulings of this Court, the City has been compelled to re-review the collected documents and produce certain documents th at it had withheld as privileged. Contrary to what Plaintiffs assert, they have been afforded extensive discovery and indeed represent that they have collected substantial proof in support of their claims. Therefore, the Court reject's Plain tiff's claims of prejudice in discovery. With regard to Item (3), the City has searched for the document and concluded that it is essentially the same as a document already produced. Therefore, Plaintiffs' concern about this docu ment is moot. With respect to Item (4), the issue is moot. The only reason Plaintiffs were seeking this information was to explore bias of an outside organization that purportedly wrote a reports critical of Plaintiffs' experts' report. However, the City has stated that it has no intention and agrees not to reference or utilize the outside organization's report. With regard to Item (5), the City has located the document but claims that it is protected by the work product doctrine. The City shall submit a copy of this document to the Court for in camera review by no later than November 25, 2019 with an explanation for its work product designation. Plaintiffs shall submit a short letter by November 27, 2019 setting forth why they believe the document is not protected. Finally, the parties shall attend a status conference at 4 p.m. on December 5, 2019 in Courtroom 17D. The Court will address any applications about the expert reports at that conferen ce. To the extent the parties wish to discuss other issues at the conference, they shall submit a letter proposing agenda items by no later than December 4, 2019. This resolves the motions at ECF Nos. 828 and 829. (Signed by Magistrate Judge Katharine H. Parker on 11/21/2019) (mro)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
-----------------------------------------------------------------X
SHAUNA NOEL and EMMANUELLA SENAT,
Plaintiffs,

11/21/2019

OPINION AND ORDER ON
MISCELANEOUS DISCOVERY
MOTIONS AND SCHEDULING
ORDER

-againstCITY OF NEW YORK,
Defendant.
-----------------------------------------------------------------X
KATHARINE H. PARKER, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

15-CV-05236 (LTS) (KHP)

On October 31, 2019, Plaintiffs filed two letter motions requesting: (1) that the Court
compel the City to produce a survey (and survey reactions) referenced in a document bearing
Bates No. 191679, (2) that the Court compel Plaintiffs to search for and produce all documents
concerning the “messaging recommendations” set forth in the document bearing Bates No.
191679, (3) that the Court order the City to search for and produce all documents concerning a
“CB preference memo” referred to in a document bearing Bates No. 206745, (4) that the Court
order the City to search for and produce all documents concerning the Citizens Housing &
Planning Council for the period March 1, 2019 to the present; and (5) that the Court order the
City to produce a draft internal survey regarding the Community Preference Policy referenced
in a document bearing Bates No. 206749.
With regard to item (1), the City has represented that it has conducted a diligent search
but had no luck in locating the survey. The City is willing to reach out to a consultant who
worked on the survey. Because it is not burdensome, the Court directs the City to request a
copy of the survey from the consultant and produce the survey by November 27, 2019 to the
extent the consultant has maintained a copy of it.
1

With regard to Item (2), the City has represented that the documents requested fall
within the documents already collected and reviewed and, thus, the City has exhausted its
search for such documents. The City notes that it has produced documents falling within
Plaintiffs requests including power point presentations and talking points reflecting the
messaging used by the City. The Court finds that the City has met its burden and that the
burdens of conducting another search to find possible additional documents on the topic that
weren’t already produced is not proportional to the needs of the case. The City has collected
documents from over 55 custodians and expended substantial resources in reviewing and
producing them. Additionally, because of several rulings of this Court, the City has been
compelled to re-review the collected documents and produce certain documents that it had
withheld as privileged. Contrary to what Plaintiffs assert, they have been afforded extensive
discovery and indeed represent that they have collected substantial proof in support of their
claims. Therefore, the Court reject’s Plaintiff’s claims of prejudice in discovery.
With regard to Item (3), the City has searched for the document and concluded that it is
essentially the same as a document already produced. Therefore, Plaintiffs’ concern about this
document is moot.
With respect to Item (4), the issue is moot. The only reason Plaintiffs were seeking this
information was to explore bias of an outside organization that purportedly wrote a reports
critical of Plaintiffs’ experts’ report. However, the City has stated that it has no intention and
agrees not to reference or utilize the outside organization’s report.
With regard to Item (5), the City has located the document but claims that it is
protected by the work product doctrine. The City shall submit a copy of this document to the
2

Court for in camera review by no later than November 25, 2019 with an explanation for its work
product designation. Plaintiffs shall submit a short letter by November 27, 2019 setting forth
why they believe the document is not protected.
Finally, the parties shall attend a status conference at 4 p.m. on December 5, 2019 in
Courtroom 17D. The Court will address any applications about the expert reports at that
conference. To the extent the parties wish to discuss other issues at the conference, they shall
submit a letter proposing agenda items by no later than December 4, 2019.
This resolves the motions at ECF Nos. 828 and 829.
SO ORDERED.
Dated: November 21, 2019
New York, New York

______________________________
KATHARINE H. PARKER
United States Magistrate Judge

3