Ramsay-Nobles v. Keyser et al

Filing 406

ORDER DISALLOWING WRIT OF PRODUCTION: Williams' deposition testimony was read into the record yesterday morning - both the Plaintiffs designations and the Supervisor Defendants' cross-designations. The decision whether to issue a writ to br ing in a prisoner to testify for trial is committed to the sound discretion of the court. In an exercise of my discretion I allowed the deposition testimony to be read. As far as the court is concerned, the application to writ Williams in is now moot . I note for the record that Williams does not appear on the witness list of the Corrections Officers; he was scheduled to testify only on the Plaintiff's case. The court had ruled that he could testify by deposition. Since counsel for the Corre ctions Officer Defendants did not see fit to alert chambers by phone or fax to their last-second application for a writ - in effect, for reconsideration of a ruling already made by the court - the court had no ability to deal with the application la st Friday afternoon, when it was made. By the time I was aware of the application it was too late to writ the witness, as Plaintiff was scheduled to rest, and did rest that very day. The Officer Defendants suffer no prejudice as a result. Defendants never indicated an interest in calling Williams on their case (and indeed, their opportunity to list him as a witness on their case expired long ago). The jury has now heard Williams' testimony - together with the Supervisor Defendants' cr oss-designations, which were read to the jury along with the deposition testimony that was offered by Plaintiff. The Officer Defendants had plenty of opportunity to cross examine Williams during his examination, and to offer cross-designations as wel l. Writting Williams in now so that he can say again what the jury has already heard would be purely duplicative. There is simply no reason to do it - it certainly would not "substantially further the resolution of the case," which is one o f the factors to be considered when deciding whether to grant or deny a writ to bring in a prisoner from a distant facility. 28 U.S.C. § 2241; In re Bernard L. Madoff Inv. Sec. LLC, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 48401, at* 17 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 31, 2014). A nd the disruption to a trial that writing in Williams would have caused would have been ill advised. The trial is running long; it will inevitably go into a third week. Plaintiffs counsel made a good faith effort to get Williams into the district at a time when it was feasible to do so. I do not fault Plaintiff for not seeking a new writ given the last minute, mid-trial nature of the information that Williams was back in custody. The application for a writ is disallowed. The Clerk should remove Docket #402 from the court's list of open motions if it in fact appears thereon. (Signed by Judge Colleen McMahon on 2/19/2020) (mml)