Galgano v. County of Putnam, New York et al

Filing 564

ORDER denying 544 Motion for Discovery; denying 545 Motion for Discovery; denying 546 Motion to Compel; denying 547 Motion for Discovery; denying 548 Motion for Discovery. Accordingly, the ICDs' motion to compel is DENIED. The Clerk is respectfully requested to close Dkts. 544, 545, 547 and 548. SO ORDERED.. (Signed by Magistrate Judge Paul E. Davison on 5/26/2021) (ks)

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

ORDER

County of Putnam, et al.
Defendants.

16 Civ. 3572 (KMK)(PED)

PAUL E. DAVISON, U.S.M.J.:
By letter-motion dated May 12, 2021, the Individual County Defendants (“ICDs”) seek
leave to take 30 depositions in this single-plaintiff civil rights action. [Dkts. 547 - 550.] By
separate letter-motion also dated May 12, the ICDs seek an Order compelling plaintiff to
produce additional discovery. [Dkts. 544-45.] Plaintiff opposes both motions. [Dkts. 551-52.]1
Familiarity with the extensive record is assumed.
Number of Depositions
The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure presumptively limit to ten the number of
depositions that each side may conduct. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(a)(2)(A) (“A party must obtain
leave of court, which shall be granted to the extent consistent with the principles stated in Rule
26(b)(2), if ... a proposed deposition would result in more than ten depositions being taken ....”);
DelaRaba v. Suozzi, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 92813 at *1 (E.D.N.Y. Nov. 17, 2006) (“Absent an
agreement among the parties, a party must obtain leave of the court before taking any additional
depositions beyond the limit of ten.”); Universal City Studios, Inc. v. Reimerdes, 104 F. Supp. 2d
1

The Court set a briefing schedule [subsequently extended as counsel’s request, see Dkts
540-41] for these disputes at a conference on May 6, 2021. At that time, the Court expressed the
view that these disputes could be resolved “on the papers” but directed counsel to notify the
Court if they wanted a hearing. The ICDs filed their letter briefs on May 12, 2021, and plaintiff
replied on May 19, 2021. On May 24, 2021, the ICDs submitted a letter requesting that the
Court schedule oral argument. [Dkt. 562.] At this point, oral argument would not be helpful to
the Court.

334, 342 (S.D.N.Y.2000). The purpose of Rule 30(a)(2)(A) is to “enable courts to maintain a
‘tighter rein’ on the extent of discovery and to minimize the potential cost of ‘[w]ide-ranging
discovery.’” Sigala v. Spikouris, 2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10743 at *3 (E.D.N.Y. Mar. 7, 2002)
(quoting Whittingham v. Amherst Coll., 163 F.R.D. 170, 171-72 (D.Mass. 1995)). Accordingly,
“[t]he mere fact that many individuals may have discoverable information does not necessarily
entitle a party to depose each such individual.” Id. (citation omitted); see also Commodity
Futures Trading Com'n v. Commodity Inv. Group, Inc., 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 27454, (S.D.N.Y.
Nov. 10, 2005) (“Although a witness might have discoverable information, a party is not always
entitled to depose that individual.”). Rule 26(b)(2)(C) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
sets forth the factors the Court should consider when a party seeks to exceed the ten deposition
limit imposed by Rule 30(a)(2)(A)(I), including whether (1) “the discovery sought is
unreasonably cumulative or duplicative or can be obtained from some other source that is more
convenient, less burdensome, or less extensive,” (2) “the party seeking discovery has had ample
opportunity to obtain the information by discovery in the action,” and (3) “the burden or expense
of the proposed discovery outweighs its likely benefit, considering the needs of the case, the
parties' resources, the importance of the issues at stake in the action, and the importance of the
discovery in resolving the issues.”
Here, the ICDs seek blanket authority to conduct three times the presumptive maximum
number of depositions, and I find that granting the ICDs carte blanche in the manner requested
would undermine Rule 30(a)(2)(A)(i)’s objective of promoting a cost-effective approach to
discovery and would instead endorse a profligate, “scorched earth” approach. For example, the
ICDs seek to depose 8 (present and former) prosecutors from the (non-party) Westchester
County District Attorneys Office regarding that Office’s decision not to prosecute plaintiff, but
2

have not attempted to exhaust that entity’s institutional knowledge by way of a deposition
convened under Rule 30(b)(6). Moreover, as plaintiff points out, the ICDs have made no effort
to rank or prioritize the depositions they seek to take. 2 Even if the Court was persuaded that
some relaxation of the ten-deposition limit was warranted, it would be inappropriate for the
Court to undertake the necessary winnowing of the ICDs’ witness list on their behalf.
Accordingly, the ICDs letter-motion for leave to take 30 depositions is DENIED.
Motion to Compel
Medical and Pharamacy Records: The ICDs concede that “plaintiff has not made any
claims related to [his] arrest and prosecution for possession of narcotics.” [Dkt. 544, p. 2.]
Contrary to the ICDs argument, however, it does not follow from that observation that “the
damages available to plaintiff for the alleged illegal search turns [sic] on whether the narcotics
found in his office were obtained by him legally or illegally.” [Dkt. 544, p. 2.] I agree with
plaintiff that the ICDs argument is based on a misreading of Townes v. City of New York, 176
F.3d 138 (2d Cir. 1999). Because plaintiff has not placed these otherwise privileged records at
issue in this lawsuit, the Court will not require production.
“Jury Tampering” Allegation: Although counsel’s presentation on this point is not
entirely clear, it appears that the ICDs already have “the transcript of the call with Capolongo as
well as [plaintiff’s] letter to the court” regarding this allegation, evidence which the ICDs assert
that they had in their possession and “could have taken into account” during their investigation

2

The ICDs’ letter-motion also contains no indication whether, or to what extent, the ICDs
have coordinated their deposition requests with the other defendants. The Advisory Committee
Notes to Rule 30(a)(2)(A) (1993 Amendment) indicate that, “[i]n multi-party cases, the parties
on any side are expected to confer and agree as to which depositions are most needed, given the
presumptive limit on the number of depositions they can take without leave of the court.”
3

and prosecution of plaintiff. [Dkts. 544-45, pp. 3-4.] As this Court has observed previously, the
ICDs are entitled to discovery to “reconstruct the files they had access to during the investigation
and prosecution of plaintiff and re-establish the full factual context in which they made the
decisions about which plaintiff now complains.” [Dkt. 539, p. 2.] The ICDs motion to compel
plaintiff to search for additional documents regarding this allegation is denied.
Amar Hattar Materials: The ICDs’ request is denied on relevance grounds. See Rule
26(b)(1), Fed. R. Civ. P.
Retainer Agreements: There is no real question here that plaintiff was an attorney or
that he represented clients. This request is therefore denied as overbroad and unnecessary at the
present time, based on plaintiff’s representation that he is producing revised materials in
response to defendants’ objections to his claims of privilege and is available to meet and confer
with defense counsel regarding any remaining disputes. [Dkts. 551, p. 4.]
Accordingly, the ICDs’ motion to compel is DENIED.
The Clerk is respectfully requested to close Dkts. 544, 545, 547 and 548.
Dated: May 26, 2021
White Plains, New York
SO ORDERED
_______________________________
Paul E. Davison, U.S.M.J.

4