Colson v. Mingo et al
Filing
241
ORDER: The Court has reviewed the submission at ECF No. 239 on remaining discovery disputes. First, to the extent that any issues remain regarding Captain Ross's date of testimony, the Court will take those issues up at the final pretrial con ference. Second, the Court will not mandate any stipulations between the parties. If issues remain regarding the stipulations after the parties have filed pretrial submissions, the Court will also take those issues up at the final pretrial conferen ce. Finally, regarding signatures on interrogatory responses, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure require signatures by the person who made the answers. Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(b)(5). Defendants have complied with this rule through the signature of the answers by Corporation Counsel. See Shire Lab'ys, Inc. v. Barr Labys, Inc., 236 F.R.D. 225, 227 (S.D.N.Y. 2006) (noting that under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 33(b)(1)(B), an "office or agent" who must answer and verify interro gatories to the corporation includes an attorney for the corporation). The Rule does not mandate that each individual defendant also verify the interrogatories. However, as Defendants note, the responses "were based on collective information of all defendants and information and documents within DOC's possession." ECF No. 239 at 2. Indeed, Local Civil Rule 33.2(c) states that such a response is made "on behalf of [] individual respondent[s] represented by the Office of the Corporation Counsel." Because Corporation Counsel's signature verifies that responses are on behalf of all Defendants, the interrogatories are binding on all Defendants. In other words, while the Court will not compel each Individual Def endant to review and verify the interrogatory responses, no Defendant will be allowed to contradict the interrogatory answers at trial. See LaBounty v. Coombe, No. 95 CIV. 2617 DLC AJP, 1996 WL 30291, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 24, 1996) (noting that whi le federal rules may not require counsel to "review the interrogatories... with each defendant," a court may assume that counsel for defendants has "complied with its obligations" to make an adequate investigation in support of interrogatory responses, and thereby treat all individual defendants as bound by interrogatory responses). SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Jessica G. L. Clarke on 1/28/2025) (tg)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
RONALD E. COLSON,
Plaintiff,
-againstMAXSOLAINE MINGO, MUNISH
CHOPRA, ENJOLI MURRIA, MARK
DANIELS, WALTER ROSS, KEVIN
ANDERSON, CEDRIC CARTER, ALASON
HENRY, EDWIN LOPERA, DANIEL ORTIZ,
and THE CITY OF NEW YORK,
18-CV-2765 (JGLC)
ORDER
Defendants.
JESSICA G. L. CLARKE, United States District Judge:
The Court has reviewed the submission at ECF No. 239 on remaining discovery disputes.
First, to the extent that any issues remain regarding Captain Ross’s date of testimony, the Court
will take those issues up at the final pretrial conference. Second, the Court will not mandate any
stipulations between the parties. If issues remain regarding the stipulations after the parties have
filed pretrial submissions, the Court will also take those issues up at the final pretrial conference.
Finally, regarding signatures on interrogatory responses, the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure require signatures by the person who made the answers. Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(b)(5).
Defendants have complied with this rule through the signature of the answers by Corporation
Counsel. See Shire Lab’ys, Inc. v. Barr Lab’ys, Inc., 236 F.R.D. 225, 227 (S.D.N.Y. 2006)
(noting that under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 33(b)(1)(B), an “office or agent” who must
answer and verify interrogatories to the corporation includes an attorney for the corporation).
The Rule does not mandate that each individual defendant also verify the interrogatories.
However, as Defendants note, the responses “were based on collective information of all
defendants and information and documents within DOC’s possession.” ECF No. 239 at 2.
Indeed, Local Civil Rule 33.2(c) states that such a response is made “on behalf of [] individual
respondent[s] represented by the Office of the Corporation Counsel.” Because Corporation
Counsel’s signature verifies that responses are on behalf of all Defendants, the interrogatories are
binding on all Defendants. In other words, while the Court will not compel each Individual
Defendant to review and verify the interrogatory responses, no Defendant will be allowed to
contradict the interrogatory answers at trial. See LaBounty v. Coombe, No. 95 CIV. 2617 DLC
AJP, 1996 WL 30291, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 24, 1996) (noting that while federal rules may not
require counsel to “review the interrogatories . . . with each defendant,” a court may assume that
counsel for defendants has “complied with its obligations” to make an adequate investigation in
support of interrogatory responses, and thereby treat all individual defendants as bound by
interrogatory responses).
Dated: January 28, 2025
New York, New York
SO ORDERED.
JESSICA G. L. CLARKE
United States District Judge
2
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?