Morales v. City of New York et al

Filing 56

ORDER. For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff's motion to compel (Dkt. 52) is denied in all respects. This Court concludes that discovery in this action is now closed, and the parties are directed (1) to submit a joint status letter to this Court, no later than May 29, 2020, regarding the potential for settlement of this action, and (2) to consult Judge Koeltls Individual Practices regarding any potential summary judgment motions and trial. So ordered. Denying 52 LETTER MOTION to Compel Cit y of New York to produce witnesses addressed to Magistrate Judge Debra C. Freeman from Robert Kraus dated March 13, 2020. Document filed by Ricardo Morales. (Signed by Magistrate Judge Debra C. Freeman on 5/20/2020) Copies to: All counsel (via ECF). (rjm)

Case 1:18-cv-01573-JGK-DCF Document 56 Filed 05/20/20 Page 1 of 4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
RICARDO MORALES,
Plaintiff,
-against-

No. 18cv1573 (JGK) (DF)

ORDER

CITY OF NEW YORK, et al.
Defendants.

DEBRA FREEMAN, United States Magistrate Judge:
By Memorandum and Order dated November 21, 2019 (the “11/21/19 Order”) (Dkt. 41),
this Court, as relevant here, granted the motion of plaintiff Ricardo Morales (“Plaintiff”) to
compel the deposition of Jon Paul Lupo (“Lupo”), former Director of Intergovernmental Affairs
for the Office of the Mayor, but denied, without prejudice, Plaintiff’s motion to compel the
deposition of Anthony Shorris (“Shorris”), former First Deputy Mayor of New York, and Emma
Wolfe (“Wolfe”), Chief of Staff to the Mayor. About four months later, after the Lupo
deposition was held, Plaintiff then sought (1) to renew his request to take the depositions of
Shorris and Wolfe, and (2) to obtain the Court’s permission to take another deposition – not the
subject of his prior motion – specifically, the deposition of former Mayoral Press Secretary
Karen Hinton (“Hinton”). (Letter Motion to Compel City of New York to Produce Witnesses,
dated Mar. 13, 2020 (“Pl. 3/13/20 Mtn.”) (Dkt. 52.).) Defendants have opposed both of these
requests. (Letter Response in Opposition to Motion, dated Mar. 25, 2020 (“Defs. 3/25/20 Opp.”)
(Dkt. 55.) Having considered Plaintiff’s current application in light of his prior motion and the
history of discovery in this case, Plaintiff’s application for additional discovery is denied.

Case 1:18-cv-01573-JGK-DCF Document 56 Filed 05/20/20 Page 2 of 4

Depositions of Shorris and Wolfe
In its November 2019 Order, this Court found that Plaintiff had failed to meet his burden
of demonstrating “exceptional circumstances” that justified taking the depositions of Shorris and
Wolfe, who served as “high-ranking officials” in the Mayor’s Office at or around the time that
Plaintiff was terminated from his employment. (11/21/19 Order, at 13-14.) In particular, this
Court stated that Plaintiff had not shown, through cited evidence, “that Shorris ha[d] unique
first-hand knowledge related to Plaintiff’s claims” (id., at 17), and, likewise, had not put forward
“a clear link between Plaintiff’s firing and Wolfe’s alleged conduct” (id., at 19).
In an effort to address these particular points in his renewed request, Plaintiff has
submitted multiple email chains involving various City officials, and excerpts of deposition
testimony from Defendant Commissioner Lisette Camilo (“Camilo”), Department of Citywide
Administrative Services (“DCAS”), and two non-party witnesses, Dominic Williams
(“Williams”), Chief Policy Advisor for the Office of the Mayor, and Emily Newman
(“Newman”), former First Deputy Commissioner of DCAS. (See Pl. 3/13/20 Mtn., Exs. D-E,
H-O.) According to Plaintiff, these email chains “confirm that Shorris and Wolfe have unique
personal knowledge relevant to Plaintiff’s claims.” (Id., at 1.)
Upon review of Plaintiff’s renewed request and the documentation submitted in support,
this Court continues to find that no “exceptional circumstances” justify the depositions of either
Shorris or Wolfe. Lederman v. N.Y. City Dep’t of Parks & Recreation, 731 F.3d 199, 203
(2d Cir. 2013). Neither the emails that Plaintiff has submitted as exhibits, nor the excerpts of
deposition testimony from Camilo, Williams, and Newman, fill in the gaps in the evidence that
Plaintiff had previously cited, and they thus do not demonstrate that such exceptional

2

Case 1:18-cv-01573-JGK-DCF Document 56 Filed 05/20/20 Page 3 of 4

circumstances are present. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s renewed motion to compel the depositions of
Shorris and Wolfe is denied.
Deposition of Hinton
Plaintiff now contends that Hinton’s deposition is necessary because Hinton allegedly
had “substantial involvement in the communications concerning [Plaintiff] and the link between
him, Rivington and an investigation by the U.S. Attorney’s [O]ffice.” (Pl. 3/13/20 Mtn., at 9.)
It appears, however, that Plaintiff has known of the role purportedly played by Hinton
since at least December 16, 2019 ‒ the date on which Defendants produced unredacted copies of
two email chains, marked as Priv-Redact 0001 and 0002. (See id., Exs. D & E.) In fact, Plaintiff
appears to concede that his request to depose Hinton is based on the information that he acquired
from those two specific email chains, and not from the depositions of Williams and Lupo that
occurred in late January of 2020. (See id., at 9 (stating that “[t]he request to depose Hinton was
not made earlier because [D]efendants[] wrongfully withheld Redact 1 & 2 . . .”).) Yet, Plaintiff
did not seek to depose Hinton in either December of 2019 or in January of 2020, even though
Plaintiff was in communication with Defendants during those months as the parties scheduled
the depositions of Williams and Lupo. (See id., at 1 (describing the parties’ scheduling efforts).)
Rather, Plaintiff waited until February 5, 2020, two days before the (extended) close of fact
discovery, to subpoena Hinton for a deposition. (Dkt. 49.)
While there may be circumstances where allowing discovery outside of a discovery
cut-off is warranted, Plaintiff has not offered good cause, in this instance, for this delay.
Grochowski v. Phoenix Constr., 318 F.3d 80, 86 (2d Cir. 2003). If this witness is as important to
Plaintiff’s case as Plaintiff now tries to suggest, then he should have made diligent efforts to
subpoena her, on reasonable notice, for a deposition within the discovery period. Plaintiff has

3

Case 1:18-cv-01573-JGK-DCF Document 56 Filed 05/20/20 Page 4 of 4

not demonstrated such diligence. Further, assuming Hinton, as the former Mayoral Press
Secretary, qualifies (similarly to the other witnesses at issue) as a “high-ranking government
official” as that term is defined in the case law, see Lederman, 731 F.3d at 203, 1 this Court finds
that Plaintiff has not demonstrated any “exceptional circumstances” that warrant taking her
deposition. In particular, Plaintiff has not articulated any link, supported by cited evidence,
between his firing and Hinton’s alleged conduct. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion to compel the
deposition of Hinton is also denied.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff’s motion to compel (Dkt. 52) is denied in all respects.
This Court concludes that discovery in this action is now closed, and the parties are directed
(1) to submit a joint status letter to this Court, no later than May 29, 2020, regarding the potential
for settlement of this action, and (2) to consult Judge Koeltl’s Individual Practices regarding any
potential summary judgment motions and trial.
Dated: New York, New York
May 20, 2020
SO ORDERED

______________________________
DEBRA FREEMAN
United States Magistrate Judge
Copies to:
All counsel (via ECF)

1

The parties have not addressed whether Hinton qualifies as a “high-ranking
governmental official” who, absent exceptional circumstances, should not be called to testify
regarding the reasons for taking official action. See Lederman, 731 F.3d at 203; see generally
Pet. 3/13/20 Mtn., at 8-9; Defs. 3/25/20 Opp., at 1, 4-5.
4