Komatsu v. The City of New York et al

Filing 294

ORDER: denying 248 Letter Motion to Compel. With regard to defendants' letter of November 20, 2019 (Docket # 275), and plaintiff's response dated December 5, 2019 (Docket # 284), the Court rules as follows. The Court denies the defendant s' motion to stay Monell discovery at this time. Whether an official policy regarding plaintiff's treatment was the impetus behind the April 27, 2017, incident may bear upon the claims against the individual defendants as well. That being s aid, appropriate Monell discovery certainly does not include all aspects of any individual incidents. It instead must relate to the question of whether there was an official policy that caused plaintiff's alleged injury. The Court makes no rulin g at this time whether it will be appropriate to bifurcate this case for purposes of trial. With respect to defendants' request to deny discovery as to "unrelated matters," the Court agrees that discovery must be relevant to the claims that have survived the motion to dismiss and only to those claims. Also, discovery requests must be not only relevant to the surviving claims but also proportional to the needs of the case. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). If a document request or seri es of requests do not meet these criteria, the Federal Rules permit the defendants to object to the requests. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 34(b)(2)(C). Once objection is made, it will then be plaintiff responsibility to determine whether he has a basis to see k relief with respect to any request that has been objected to. As to any discovery disputes, the parties must follow paragraph 2.A of the Court's Individual Practices and comply with the Court's Order of October 31, 2019 (Docket # 261 ). T he Court notes that plaintiff's response suggests that it would be appropriate to have the meet-and-confer required by paragraph 2.A of the Court's Individual Practices take place in public. That is not the case. It may take place only by t elephone or in the office of an attorney. If the parties cannot agree on a location, it shall take place by telephone. To not inhibit the free flow of communication, neither side may make an audio recording of any telephone conference between the par ties without all participants' written permission. With regard to plaintiff's letter of December 16, 2019 (Docket # 293), the Court does not give legal advice. The Court's Pro Se Intake Unit has prepared a document called "Discove ry Guide for Pro Se Litigants" which is available on the Court's website. In addition, the NewYork Legal Assistance Group ([phone]), located at Room LL22 40 Centre Street New York, NY 10007, may be able to offer assistance. Finally, the Court notes that a number of plaintiff's submissions, such as the December 16, 2019, letter, state that the plaintiff is "order[ing]" the Court to take a particular action or actions. Litigants before the Court do not have the powe r to issue an order and thus do not have the power to "order" the Court to take an action. In the future, the Court will not act on any letter that contains an "order" from a party. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Magistrate Judge Gabriel W. Gorenstein on 12/18/2019) Copies Sent By Chambers. (ama)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

---------------------------------------------------------------x
TOWAKI KOMATSU,
Plaintiff,

ORDER

-v.18 Civ. 3 98 (LGS) (GWG)
THE CITY OF NEW YORK, et al.,
Defendants.

---------------------------------------------------------------x
GABRIEL W. GORENSTEIN, UNITED STATES MAGISTRAT JUDGE
With regard to defendants' letter of November 20, 2019 (Doc et# 275), and plaintiffs
response dated December 5, 2019 (Docket# 284), the Court rules as Hows.
1.

The Court denies the defendants' motion to stay Monell disco ery at this time. Whether
an official policy regarding plaintiffs treatment was the impet s behind the April 27,
201 7, incident may bear upon the claims against the individua defendants as well. That
being said, appropriate Monell discovery certainly does not in lude all aspects of any
individual incidents. It instead must relate to the question of hether there was an
official policy that caused plaintiffs alleged injury. The Cou makes no ruling at this
time whether it will be appropriate to bifurcate this case for p rposes of trial.

2.

With respect to defendants' request to deny discovery as to "u elated matters," the
Court agrees that discovery must be relevant to the claims that have survived the motion
to dismiss and only to those claims. Also, discovery requests ust be not only relevant
to the surviving claims but also proportional to the needs of th case. See Fed. R. Civ. P.
26(b)(1 ). If a document request or series of requests do not m et these criteria, the
Federal Rules permit the defendants to object to the requests. See Fed. R. Civ. P.
34(b)(2)(C). Once objection is made, it will then be plaintiff responsibility to
determine whether he has a basis to seek relief with respect to any request that has been
objected to. As to any discovery disputes, the parties must fol ow paragraph 2.A of the
Court's Individual Practices and comply with the Court's Ord r of October 31, 2019
(Docket # 261 ).

3.

The Court notes that plaintiffs response suggests that it woul be appropriate to have the
meet-and-confer required by paragraph 2.A of the Court's Ind vidual Practices take place
in public. That is not the case. It may take place only by telephone or in the office of an
attorney. If the parties cannot agree on a location, it shall take place by telephone. To

not inhibit the free flow of communication, neither side may make an audio recording of
any telephone conference between the parties without all participants' written
perm1ss10n.
With regard to plaintiffs letter of December 16, 2019 (Docket# 293), the Court does not
give legal advice. The Court's Pro Se Intake Unit has prepared a document called "Discovery
Guide for Pro Se Litigants" which is available on the Court's website. In addition, the New
York Legal Assistance Group ([phone]), located at Room LL22 40 Centre Street New
York, NY 10007, may be able to offer assistance.
Finally, the Court notes that a number of plaintiffs submissions, such as the December
16, 2019, letter, state that the plaintiff is "order[ing]" the Court to take a particular action or
actions. Litigants before the Court do not have the power to issue an order and thus do not have
the power to "order" the Court to take an action. In the future, the Court will not act on any
letter that contains an "order" from a party.
Dated: New York, New York
December 18, 2019
SO ORDERED:

Copy sent to:
Towaki Komatsu
802 Fairmount Place, Apt. 4B
Bronx, New York 10460
Counsel by ECF

2