Almonte v. New York Police Department et al

Filing 44

OPINION AND ORDER: I write to resolve the discovery disputes raised in plaintiff's letter December 28, 2016 (Docket Item ("D.I.") 38) and addressed in defendants' letter dated January 9, 2017 (D.I. 39). Within 14 days of the date of this Order, defendants are to produce all documents concerning Hines' disciplinary that (1) predate his being placed on performance monitoring and (2) relate to Hines' actual or alleged use of excessive force or falsification of official documents. (As further set forth in this Order.) With respect to Interrogatory 6, defendants are ordered to produce the complaint in Wright and Abdul Bashir v. City of New York, 97 Civ. 2093 (S.D.N.Y.) within 14 days of the date of this Order. Altho ugh this document was not filed electronically on the Court's ECF system, there is no indication in the docket sheet that it was ever sealed or otherwise afforded confidential treatment. (Signed by Magistrate Judge Henry B. Pitman on 1/31/2017) Copies Mailed By Chambers. (cf)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
-----------------------------------X
MARCO ALMONTE,
Plaintiff,

15 Civ. 6843

(PAE) (HBP)

OPINION
AND ORDER

-againstKENNETH HINES, et al.,
Defendants.

-----------------------------------X

PITMAN, United States Magistrate Judge:

I write to resolve the discovery disputes raised in
plaintiff's letter December 28, 2016 (Docket Item ("D.I.") 38)
and addressed in defendants' letter dated January 9, 2017 (D.I.
3 9) •

In his first interrogatory, plaintiff asked for the
following:
Interrogatory No. 1.: On the night of December 5th,
2013 police officer Kenneth Hines was on or had previously been placed on "performance monitoring" for
excessive complaints that he used excessive force.
The
plaintiff requests, exposure into the records [sic] and
all documents related including all facts related as,
when, why and for how long officer "Hines" was placed
on performance monitoring.
In an Order dated November 18, 2016 (D. I. 35), I directed defendants "to produce responsive documents, if any, for a period of
five years prior to the date of the alleged incident giving rise

to this action to the extent, if any, the performance monitoring
was the result of either Officer Hines' actual or alleged use of
excessive force or falsification of official documents."

Plain-

tiff claims that the documents he received in response to this
item indicate that at least part of the reason Hines was placed
on performance monitoring was his disciplinary history but that
documents concerning that disciplinary history were not produced.
Defendants' do not dispute this description of their response and
cryptically state "Defendants respectfully submit that they have
produced the entirely of the Performance Monitoring File."
Defendants do not otherwise address their failure to produce the
portions of Hines' disciplinary history that contributed to his
being placed on performance monitoring.

If there are documents

concerning Hines' disciplinary history that bear on his being
placed on performance monitoring, they fall within the scope of
my November 18 Order.

Within 14 days of the date of this Order,

defendants are to produce all documents concerning Hines' disciplinary that (1) predate his being placed on performance monitoring and (2) relate to Hines' actual or alleged use of excessive
force or falsification of official documents.

2

Defendants' January 9 letter adequately explains their
response the references in the documents to Hines' probationary
status, and no further production concerning this issue is
required.
Defendants' January 9 letter adequately explains the
redactions from Hines' CCB history, and no further production
concerning this issue is required.
With respect to Interrogatory 6, defendants are ordered
to produce the complaint in Wright and Abdul Bashir v. City of
New York, 97 Civ. 2093
this Order.

(S.D.N.Y.) within 14 days of the date of

Although this document was not filed electronically

on the Court's ECF system, there is no indication in the docket
sheet that it was ever sealed or otherwise afforded confidential
treatment.

The simple fact that defendants' counsel cannot

access it electronically is not a basis to withhold it.

Defen-

dants' invitation to plaintiff to identify any other documents he
is seeking in response to this Interrogatory is otherwise sufficient.
Dated:

New York, New York
January 31, 2017
SO ORDERED

)'

~~

HEN~ Magistrate Judge
United States
3

Copies mailed to:
Mr. Marco Almonte
No. 53552
Morris County Correctional Facility
43 John Street
Morristown, New Jersey 07960
Eviana L.F. Englert, Esq.
Assistant Corporation Counsel
City of New York
NYC Law Department
100 Church Street
New York, New York 10007

4