Taylor v. Trigeno et al

Filing 288

ORDER: denying 284 Motion to Sever. Accordingly, Plaintiff has failed to show that sanctions are warranted against Mr. Quayyum or his counsel, and Plaintiff's motion for sanctions is denied. Dkt. No. 284. The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate the motion pending at Dkt. No. 284. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Gregory H. Woods on 1/30/2024) (ama)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
----------------------------------------------------------------- X
:
ROY JOAQUIN TAYLOR,
:
:
Plaintiff,
:
:
-v –
:
:
:
CITY OF NEW YORK, et al.,
:
Defendants. :
:
----------------------------------------------------------------- X
GREGORY H. WOODS, United States District Judge:

USDC SDNY
DOCUMENT
ELECTRONICALLY FILED
DOC #: _________________
DATE FILED: 1/30/2024

1:16-cv-01143-GHW
ORDER

On December 22, 2023, Plaintiff filed a motion to “sever [and] render decision for punitive
damages for Qayyum’s attorney not being forthcoming on interrogatories.” Dkt. No. 284. The
Court construes Plaintiff’s motion as a motion for sanctions against counsel for Defendant Officer
Quayyum for a purported misrepresentation in Defendant C.O. Quayyum’s discovery responses. Id.
Plaintiff objects that, in response to his interrogatory on whether Defendant Qayyum was ever
“involved in the use of chemical agent against any other detainee in the past,” Defendants
responded “no,” which he contends is a lie. Id.
On December 26, 2023, the Court directed that Defendants file a response by January 5,
2024, and that any reply from Plaintiff be filed by January 12. Dkt. No. 285. Defendants filed a
response on January 5, 2024. Dkt. No. 286. Plaintiff did not file a reply.
“Sanctions may be authorized by any of a number of rules or statutory provisions, or may be
permissible on the basis of the court’s inherent powers.” Sakon v. Andreo, 119 F.3d 109, 113 (2d Cir.
1997). “Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 26(g) and 37 represent the principal enforcement power to
punish discovery abuse.” Yukos Capital S.A.R.L. v. Feldman, 977 F.3d 216, 236–37 (2d Cir. 2020)
(citation omitted).

“Rule 26(g) is intended to deter and curb discovery abuses, including evasive responses, by
‘explicitly encouraging the imposition of sanctions.’” Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum Co., No. 02-cv7618 (KMW)(HBP), 2009 WL 1810104, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. June 25, 2009) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 26
advisory committee’s note). Rule 26(g) requires that “[e]very disclosure under Rule 26(a)(1) or (a)(3)
and every discovery request, response, or objection must be signed by at least one attorney of record
in the attorney’s own name.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(g)(1). By signing a response to a discovery request,
an attorney certifies that to the best of her “knowledge, information, and belief formed after a
reasonable inquiry,” the response is (1) consistent with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and
justified under existing law; (2) not interposed for any improper purpose, such as to unnecessarily
delay or needlessly increase the costs of litigation; and (3) reasonable given the importance of the issue
and the circumstances of the case. Kiobel, 2009 WL 1810104, at *2 (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(g)(1)).
The certification requirement “obliges each attorney to stop and think about the legitimacy
of the discovery request, a response thereto, or an objection.” Metro. Opera Ass’n, Inc. v. Local 100,
Hotel Emps. & Rest. Emps. Int’l Union, 212 F.R.D. 178, 219 (S.D.N.Y. 2003) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(g),
advisory committee’s note to 1983 Amendment). “Rule 26(g) does not require the signing attorney
to certify the truthfulness of the client’s factual responses to a discovery request.” Kiobel, 2009 WL
1810104, at *2 (quotation omitted). Instead, under Rule 26(g), attorneys may rely on the
representations of their clients, so long as they have made a reasonable inquiry to verify the
information in the pleadings that the attorney has signed. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(g)(1). “An attorney’s
inquiry . . . including her investigation and her resulting conclusions [satisfies Rule 26(g) if the
inquiry] was objectively reasonable under the circumstances.” Kiobel, 2009 WL 1810104, at *2 (citing
Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(g) advisory committee’s note); see also Quinby v. WestLB AG, No. 04-cv-7406
(WHP)(HBP), 2005 WL 3453908, at *4 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 15, 2005) (“Ultimately, what is reasonable is
a matter for the court to decide on the totality of the circumstances.’”).
2

Defendants provide the relevant portion of Plaintiff’s interrogatory and Defendants’
response, as follows:
Plaintiff’s Interrogatory No. 10: “Since being a C.O. with NYC DOC how many
incidents you’ve been in where you used chemical agent? Answer.”
Defendants’ response: “Defendants object to Interrogatory No. 10 on the grounds that
it is overbroad, not sufficiently limited in time or scope, and to the extent that it
seeks information that is not proportional to the needs of this case as set forth in
FRCP 26(b)(1) as it is requesting information beyond the subject matter of this
lawsuit, to the extent that this request seeks information not relevant to plaintiff’s
claims or any defenses, and is not reasonably calculated to lead to discovery of
admissible evidence. Defendants also object on the grounds that this request is
outside the scope of Local Rule 33.3. Defendants further object to the extent it seeks
information subject to the official information privilege, law enforcement privilege,
and that implicates the privacy and security concerns of non-parties.”
Dkt. No. 286 at 2. 1 In short, contrary to Plaintiff’s assertion, Defendants represent that they did not
answer “no” or otherwise deny Mr. Quayyum’s use of a chemical spray. Id. In fact, Defendants do
not deny that Mr. Quayyum used a chemical spray against another inmate. Id. Plaintiff fail to
provide a copy of Defendants’ allegedly false statements and, in failing to reply, does not refute
Defendants’ copy of their responses to his interrogatory. Plaintiff has not identified any
misrepresentations by Defendants in their discovery responses, much less one warranting sanctions
under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(g).
Accordingly, Plaintiff has failed to show that sanctions are warranted against Mr. Quayyum
or his counsel, and Plaintiff’s motion for sanctions is denied. Dkt. No. 284.
The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate the motion pending at Dkt. No. 284.
SO ORDERED.
Dated: January 30, 2024
New York, New York

__________________________________
GREGORY H. WOODS
United States District Judge

Defendants state in their letter response that the full set of Plaintiff’s First Set of Interrogatories and
Defendants’ responses are attached in full to their letter as Exhibits A and B. Dkt. No. 286 at 1. The Court
sees no attached exhibits to Defendants’ letter.

1

3