Galgano v. County of Putnam, New York et al

Filing 622

ORDER granting 618 Letter Motion for Discovery; denying 621 Letter Motion for Discovery. Accordingly, Putnam's motion for a protective order is GRANTED. The Clerk shall close Dkts. 618 and 621. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Magistrate Judge Paul E. Davison on 8/27/2021) (kv)

Case 7:16-cv-03572-KMK-PED Document 622 Filed 08/27/21 Page 1 of 2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
'~>1 ~\ "<!

Galgano,

Plaintiff,

ORDER

- against -

County of Putnam, et al.
Defendants.

16Civ.3572(KMK)(PED)

PAUL E. DAVISON, U.S.M.J.:
By letter-motion dated August 19, 2021, defendant County ofPutnam seeks a protective
order barring the deposition of the County's current District Attorney, Robert Tendy. [Dkt, 618.]

Plaintiff filed his opposition on August 26, 2021. [DkL 621.] Familiarity with the record is
assumed. Putnam's motion is GRANTED.
Courts disfavor the depositions of senior government executives unless they have
personal knowledge of relevant facts or some unique knowledge that is relevant to the action.
See Lows Vwtton MaIleHer v. Dooney & Bourke, Inc., 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 87096 at ^39
(S.D.N.Y. Nov. 30, 2006); In Re Ski Tram Fire, 2006 U.S. Dist LEXIS 29987 at *29 (S.D.N.Y.
May 16, 2006), I therefore reject plaintiffs contention that a protective order in this context is
"unusual" or that it requires an elaborate showing of good cause.

Here, plaintiff seeks the deposition of the sitting District Attorney, who is undeniably a

'By Order dated August 1 9, 2021, the Court advised counsel that the Court would "rule
on the submissions unless oral argument [was] requested." [Dkt. 619, corrected as to date at Dkt.
620.] No party requested argument.
I also reject plaintiffs suggestion that defendant's letter-motion, which is substantially
compliant with this Court's standard but often ignored Order pertaining to the resolution of
discovery disputes [Dkt. 67], is procedurally deficient because it is not accompanied by a
declaration from District Attorney Tendy. Here, the historical and undisputed facts are sufficient
to resolve this dispute.

Case 7:16-cv-03572-KMK-PED Document 622 Filed 08/27/21 Page 2 of 2

senior government executive as he is the chief law enforcement official ofPutnam County.

Critically, it is undisputed that District Attorney Tendy did not assume office January 1, 2016,
after the events-spanning 2013 through 2015-which gave rise to plaintiff s claims. There is
no contention that District Attorney Tendy played any role in the investigation or prosecution of
plaintiff before he took office, nor is there any basis to believe that he was privvy to the internal
machinations of the District Attorney's office while his predecessor and political rival, defendant
Levy, was District Attorney. As plaintiff has stressed in other contexts:
This action is entirely about whether law enforcement officials,
acting under color of law, were legally justified in taking, or allowing,
the damaging actions they and their subordinates took against Mr.
Galgano, his business, and his family, based on the evidence in their
possession at she time. . . Anyfhwg of which the Defendcmts were imaware

at fhe time they acted is hrelevcmffo whefher their official actions were
lciw/if/,

[Dkt. 318 (Second Amended Complaint), ^ 9.](emphasis added).
I agree with Putnam County that any opinions District Attorney Tendy may have formed
concerning his predecessor, or his predecessor's conduct, are irrelevant to this action. There is
good cause for an order to protect him and his office from "annoyance, embarrassment,
oppression, or undue burden or expense" pursuant to Rule 26(c)(l), Fed. R. Civ. P.
Accordingly, Putnam's motion for a protective order is GRANTED, The Clerk shall
close Dkts. 618 and 621.

Dated: August 27, 2021
White Plains, New York

"P^nr-fiavi^n, U.S.M.J