Local 3621, EMS Officers Union, DC-37, AFSCME, AFL-CIO et al v. City of New York et al

Filing 615

ORDER denying 611 Letter Motion for Discovery.Plaintiffs' request to compel production of five EEO complaints alleging age discrimination and retaliation is DENIED. Ultimately, Plaintiffs' letter does not state grounds for broadening t he Court's September 19, 2024 order that Defendants are to produce all formal complaints based only on race, sex/gender, or disability discrimination filed against Roberto Colon and James Booth from 2012 to the present. Plaintiffs' letter motion for discovery, Dkt. No. 611, is denied. (And as further set forth herein.) SO ORDERED.. (Signed by Judge Lewis J. Liman on 9/24/2024) (jca)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
---------------------------------------------------------------------- X
:
LOCAL 3621, EMS OFFICERS UNION, DC-37,
:
AFSCME, AFL-CIO, individually and on behalf of its
:
members, RENAE MASCOL, and LUIS RODRIGUEZ, :
on behalf of themselves and on behalf of all other
:
similarly-situated individuals,
:
:
Plaintiffs,
:
:
-v:
:
CITY OF NEW YORK, et al.,
:
:
Defendants.
:
:
---------------------------------------------------------------------- X

9/24/2024

18-cv-4476
ORDER

LEWIS J. LIMAN, United States District Judge:
Plaintiffs’ request to compel production of five EEO complaints alleging age
discrimination and retaliation is DENIED.
Rule 26(b)(1) permits discovery into “any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any
party’s claim or defense and proportional to the needs of the case.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1).
The Court is not convinced that the five complaints are relevant or proportional to the needs of
this case. It is true that “[a]s a general matter, in an employment discrimination case such as this,
evidence regarding similar acts is relevant to the plaintiff's claim.” Malzberg v. NYU, 2020 WL
3618962, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. July 2, 2020).

However, Plaintiffs do not establish that the five

complaints at issue are “similar” to Plaintiffs’ discrimination claims such that they would have
any bearing on the case. Plaintiffs allege discrimination based on race, sex/gender, and
disability. The Court has ordered the production of complaints of discrimination on those
grounds. Although the Federal Rules permit liberal discovery, Plaintiffs have failed to show how

five complaints against the two senior members of the Fire Department for age-based
discrimination or retaliation would tend to support Plaintiffs’ claims of discrimination here.
Plaintiffs’ citation to Lieberman v. Gant, 630 F.2d 60 (2d Cir. 1980) is inapposite as, in
that case, Judge Friendly merely noted that “[e]vidence of general patterns of discrimination by
an employer is relevant even in an individual disparate treatment case” without holding that a
pattern of discrimination on the basis of one protected trait is relevant to an individual’s claim of
discrimination on the basis of a different protected trait. Indeed, courts regularly limit discovery
of discrimination complaints to complaints regarding discrimination only on the bases alleged by
the plaintiff. E.g., Malzberg, 2020 WL 3618962, at *3 (permitting discovery of “complaints
and/or charges of discrimination on the basis of disability”); Max Torgovnick v. SoulCycle, Inc.,
2018 WL 5318277, at *4 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 29, 2018) (“Defendant is directed to produce
documents relating to any complaints regarding disability discrimination, retaliation, medical
leave, failure to provide reasonable accommodations, and harassment”).
Ultimately, Plaintiffs’ letter does not state grounds for broadening the Court’s September
19, 2024 order that Defendants are to produce all formal complaints based only on race,
sex/gender, or disability discrimination filed against Roberto Colon and James Booth from 2012
to the present.
Plaintiffs’ letter motion for discovery, Dkt. No. 611, is denied.

SO ORDERED.
Dated: September 24, 2024
New York, New York

__________________________________
LEWIS J. LIMAN
United States District Judge

2