Adamson v. City of Buffalo et al
Filing
29
ORDER granting in part and denying in part 24 Motion to Compel. Signed by Hon. Hugh B. Scott on 3/5/2013. (JRA)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
_________________________________________
Zachary Adamson,
Plaintiff,
Hon. Hugh B. Scott
11CV663A
v.
Decision
& Order
City of Buffalo et al.,
Defendants.
_________________________________________
Before the Court is the plaintiff’s motion to compel discovery (Docket No. 24).
Background
The plaintiff, Zachary Adamson (“Adamson”), originally brought this action in New York
State Supreme Court, alleging that Buffalo Police Officers Joseph Cook, Michael Keane and
Sharon Acker falsely arrested him for disorderly conduct and obstructing governmental
administration in the second degree. (Complaint attached to Docket No. 1, Counts 1 & 2). The
plaintiff alleges that the defendants used excessive force in doing so. (Complaint attached to
Docket No. 1, Count 3). The plaintiff also asserts a claim against the City of Buffalo for failing
to properly train the individual defendants. (Complaint attached to Docket No. 1, Count 4).
Adamson re-asserts the allegations contained in Counts 1 though 4 as the basis of a civil rights
claim under 42 U.S.C. §1983. (Complaint attached to Docket No. 1, Count 5).
1
Motion to Compel
The plaintiff seeks to compel the defendants to further respond to a demand for the
“personnel files, documents, ... relating to any complaints made against [the individual
defendants] while they were in the employ of the Buffalo Police Department.” (Docket No. 2410 at ¶2). In addition, the plaintiff had issued various subpoenas seeking depositions from
Buffalo Mayor Byron Brown and other City officials. The subpoenas also sought the production
of various documents relating to the individual defendants in this case. (Docket No. 24-14).
Although the plaintiff has agreed to quash the subpoenas (Docket No. 26), the plaintiff states that
the defendants have not produced the documents sought thereunder as they had promised to do.
(Docket No. 24-1 at ¶8).
With respect to the plaintiff’s requests (as contained in both in the document demand and
the subpoenas1) for documents from the defendants’ personnel files, the defendants oppose the
motion on the grounds that some of the requests are overly broad (Docket No. 27 at ¶ 4) and that
the material being sought is protected by §50-a of the New York State Civil Rights Law. (Docket
No. 27 at ¶ 7). In federal civil rights cases, issues of privilege are governed by federal, not state,
law. It is undisputed that under federal law, New York Civil Rights Law § 50-a does not prohibit
discovery of police personnel documents. Martin v. Lamb, 122 F.R.D. 143, 146 (W.D.N.Y.
1988). That does not mean that the state statute is to be given no effect. According to the New
York State Court of Appeals, the legislative intent underlying the enactment of §50-a was
enacted to prevent time consuming and perhaps vexatious investigation into irrelevant collateral
matters in the contest of a civil or criminal action, and to avoid embarrassment and harassment of
1
For example, see Docket No. 24-14 at ¶¶ 10-11.
2
testifying officers by cross-examination concerning “unsubstantiated and irrelevant” matters in
their personnel files. See Matter of Capital Newspapers v. Burns, 67 N.Y.2d 562 (1986).
Generally, the Court will direct the production of documents contained in the personnel file of an
officer only if the documents are relevant and involved disciplinary action taken against the
officer. See Diaz v. Goord, 2007 WL 2815735 (W.D.N.Y. 2007)(Payson, M.J.)(directing
disclosure of documents relating to disciplinary action imposed on the defendants in connection
with allegation of excessive force); Wright v. Goord, 2008 WL 2788287 (W.D.N.Y.
2008)(Payson, M.J.)(directing search of personnel files for documents relating to disciplinary
action taken against defendants based upon the use of excessive force). It is unlikely that
documents relating to unsubstantiated claims of excessive force would lead to admissible
evidence. See Crenshaw v. Herbert, 409 Fed.Appx. 428 (2d. Cir. 2011)(the district court did not
abuse its discretion by denying plaintiff’s motion to compel production of defendant’s personnel
file; the court properly relied on defense counsel's affirmation that the file contained no relevant
disciplinary records; even if evidence of a prior substantiated excessive force investigation
existed, on the facts of the particular case before us such evidence would be inadmissible to show
that defendant acted violently in this instance). Crenshaw, 409 Fed.Appx. at 430 citing
Fed.R.Evid. 404(b). See also DiRico v. City of Quincy, 404 F.3d 464 (1st Cir. 2005)(district
court in arrestee's § 1983 action against police officer for injuries sustained in arrest did not
plainly err in excluding evidence of an earlier arrest by officer that resulted in a complaint of use
of excessive force; evidence had no special relevance to any issue in action, evidence relating to a
single, unsubstantiated claim of use of excessive force had limited probative value, and
admission would have created danger that jury would render verdict on improper basis that
officer was prone to engaging in violent behavior.). In light of the above, the defendants are
3
directed to produce only those documents relating to any claims of excessive use of force,
improper arrest, or improper prosecution involving the individual defendants which have been
substantiated upon the conclusion of an internal administrative investigation or court proceeding.
Any information produced by this directive, shall be used only for the purposes of this case
and the disclosure shall be restricted to attorneys eyes only in this case.
In addition, the plaintiff’s requests attached to the subpoenas seek documents relating to
any training received by the individual officers in this case. (Docket No. 24-14 at ¶¶ 1-7).
Information as to how the City of Buffalo trains its police officers is relevant to the plaintiff’s
claim that the officers in this case were not properly trained. However, this information is also of
a sensitive nature and could compromise officer safety if available to the public. In an effort to
balance the competing needs in this case, the defendants are directed to produce the following
materials: (a) copies of any and all certificates or other documents issued to the individual
defendants demonstrating their completion of a training program, staff-in-service, or continuing
education program relating to the making of arrests or the use of force; and (b) copies of the
training materials used for training and instruction which were provided to the individual
defendants in connection with any of the aforementioned training events.
The plaintiff also seeks to have the defendants produce any notes or other documents they
may have drafted or received relating to Adamson, or Adamson’s arrest on April 1, 2010 (Docket
No. 24-14 ¶¶ 7-9, 15, 21-29). It is unclear from the record whether these documents have been
produced. If they have not yet been produced, the defendants are directed to produce any such
documents (with the exception of documents subject to the attorney-client privilege in this
matter). To the extent that the plaintiff seeks documents created by or received by Mayor Brown
or others containing “opinions, viewpoints and observations” as to the policies of the Buffalo
4
Police Department (Docket No. 24-14 ¶¶ 12-14), the defendant need not respond to these
requests as they are overly broad and unlikely to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.
Again, any information produced pursuant to the above, shall be used only for the
purposes of this case and the disclosure shall be restricted to attorneys eyes only in this case.2
By directing the production of this information, the Court does not make any finding as to its
admissibility at trial. A determination relating to admissibility shall be made by the Judge
presiding over any trial in this case. To the extent the defendants are directed to produce the
documents as discussed above, the documents shall be produced to the plaintiff within 20 days of
the date of this Order.
Scheduling Issues
The dates in the Amended Scheduling Order have passed. (Docket No. 15). To facilitate
the pretrial proceedings in this matter, and in light of the age of this case, the following expedited
schedule shall apply:
1.
This case has been referred automatically to the Alternative Dispute Resolution
(ADR) program. The parties are encouraged to continue efforts to resolve this
matter throught the ADR program.
2.
The referral to mediation shall terminate on December 31, 2013. In the event that
settlement is not reached, the case will progress toward trial, as scheduled below.
3.
The referral of this case to mediation will not delay or defer other dates
contained in this Scheduling Order and has no effect on the progress of the
case toward trial.
4.
All discovery in this case shall conclude on May 31, 2013. All motions to compel
shall be due at least 30 days prior to that discovery cutoff date.
2
Upon completion of this case, all such materials shall be returned to counsel for the
defendants.
5
5.
The plaintiff shall identify experts and provide written reports in compliance with
Rule 26(a)(2), as amended in 1993, no later than April 15, 2013; the defendant
shall identify experts and provide written reports in compliance with Rule
26(a)(2), as amended in 1993, no later than May 15, 2013 See Rule 26 of the
Local Rules for the Western District of New York as amended effective December
1, 1994. All expert discovery shall be completed on or before May 31, 2013.
6.
In the event settlement is not effectuated through mediation, dispositive motions,
if any, shall be filed no later than August 30, 2013. If no dispositive motions are
filed, and no other motions are pending as of that date, the parties are
directed to contact the Chambers of Hon. Richard J. Arcara within 10 days
to request a trial date status conference
7.
No extension of the above cutoff dates will be granted except upon written joint
motion, filed prior to the cutoff date, showing good cause for the extension.
Counsel's attention is directed to Fed. R. Civ. P. Rule 16(f) calling for sanctions in the
event of failure to comply with any direction of this Court.
So Ordered.
/ s / Hugh B. Scott
United States Magistrate Judge
Western District of New York
Buffalo, New York
March 5, 2013
6
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?