Wyatt, as Administratrix of the Estate of India T. Cummings v. County of Erie et al

Filing 204

ORDER granting 188 Motion for Extension of Time to Complete Discovery; denying 188 Motion to Compel; denying 190 Motion to Strike 188 MOTION for Extension of Time to Complete Discovery MOTION to Compel Depositions of Defend ants, 190 MOTION to Strike Plaintiff's Notice of Deposition to the County of Erie;MOTION for Extension of Time of Discovery Deadlines and MOTION to Bifurcate and Staying Discovery on Monell Claims, 192 MOTION t o Bifurcate and MOTION to Stay Discovery on Monell Claims ; granting 190 Motion for Extension of Time re 188 MOTION for Extension of Time to Complete Discovery MOTION to Compel Depositions of Defendants, 190 MOTION to Strike Plaintiff's Notice of Deposition to the County of Erie;MOTION for Extension of Time of Discovery Deadlines and MOTION to Bifurcate and Staying Discovery on Monell Claims, 192 MOTION to Bifurcate and MOTION to Stay Discovery on Monell Claims ; denying 190 Motion to Bifurcate; denying 192 Motion to Bifurcate; denying 192 Motion to Stay. The parties shall submit to the Court a revised, stipulated scheduling order within 30 days. Signed by Hon. William K. Sessions III on 2/5/24. (SG)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE
WESTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
TAWANA R. WYATT, as
Administrator of the Estate
of INDIA T. CUMMINGS,
Plaintiff,
v.
CITY OF LACKAWANNA, CITY OF
LACKAWANNA POLICE DEPARTMENT,
OFFICER JOHN-PAUL FIGLEWSKI,
OFFICER BALCARCZYK, OFFICER
JONES, CAPTAIN JOSEPH LEO,
CAPTAIN ROBERT JANOWSKI,
COUNTY OF ERIE, ERIE COUNTY
SHERIFF’S OFFICE, SHERIFF
TIMOTHY B. HOWARD, SHERIFF’S
DEPUTY BEARING BADGE 1079,
AMY JORDAN, R.N., BRIDGET
LEONARD, HOLLANI GOLTZ, JILL
LOBOCCHIARO, UNIVERSITY
PSYCHIATRIC PRACTICE, INC.,
PETER MARTIN, M.D., EVELYN
COGGINS, M.D., TOM CHAPIN,
M.D.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

File No. 1:17-cv-446-wks

OPINION AND ORDER
Plaintiff Tawana Wyatt, as administrator of the Estate of
India Cummings, brings this action alleging mistreatment related
to Cummings’ arrest, incarceration, and medical care.

Pending

before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion for extension of time to
complete discovery and motion to compel certain depositions (ECF
No. 188); a Defendants’ motion to strike the notice of
deposition served on the County of Erie and for extension of

time to complete discovery (ECF No. 190); and two Defendants’
motions to bifurcate and stay discovery related to Plaintiff’s
Monell claims (ECF No. 190, 192).

For the reasons set forth

below, the motions for extension of time are granted and the
remaining motions are denied.
Factual Background
Wyatt alleges that on February 1, 2016, Cummings was
arrested and detained at the Erie County Holding Center.

While

in police custody she suffered a spiral fracture of her left
humerus.

She was taken to the hospital for treatment, then

returned to the holding center.

Over the course of the

following two weeks, she allegedly became delusional and refused
to eat or drink.

On February 17, 2016, she lost consciousness

and showed no observable heart rate or respiration.

She was

transported to Buffalo General Hospital where she was diagnosed
with cardiac arrest, severe dehydration, malnutrition, and organ
failure.

She died at the hospital four days later.

The Second Amended Complaint (“SAC”) brings a series of
causes of action alleging, among other things, unconstitutional
deprivation of medical care and Monell liability.

ECF No. 106.

The Monell defendants include the County of Erie and Sheriff
Timothy Howard.

Id. at 63-67, ¶¶ 303-313.

The Court previously

dismissed Plaintiff’s federal claims brought against certain
medical providers and remanded other claims to state court.
2

ECF

No. 166.
court.

As a result, there is a related case pending in state

See Wyatt v. Erie County Medical Center, 805746/2017

(Sup. Ct., Erie County).

There is also a third related case

pending in this federal district.

See Wyatt v. Kozlowski, et

al., 1:19-cv-00159-EAW-LGF.
Discussion
I.

Motions for Extension of Time to Complete Discovery
Plaintiff and the Erie County Defendants1 have both moved

the Court for an extension of time in which to complete
discovery.

Given the number of parties involved, the many

related counsel, and the desire of counsel in the three related
cases to conduct depositions jointly, Plaintiff reports that it
has been difficult to schedule those depositions.

The Court

finds that the complexity of the case, the logistical challenges
presented by coordinating discovery in multiple cases, and the
reasonable desire to conduct discovery jointly constitute good
cause for an extension of the discovery schedule.
Civ. P. 16(b)(4).

See Fed. R.

The motions for extension of time (ECF Nos.

188, 190) are therefore granted, and the parties shall submit to
the Court a revised, stipulated discovery schedule within 30
days of the date of this Opinion and Order.

The Erie County Defendants include the County of Erie, the
Erie County Sheriff’s Office, Erie County Sheriff Timothy B.
Howard, Erie County Deputy Walter J. Haliday, Bridget Leonard,
Hollani Goltz and Jill Lobocchiaro.
1

3

II.

Motion to Compel Depositions
Plaintiff also moves for “Court intervention” with respect

to the scheduling of Erie County Sheriff Deputies’ depositions.
ECF No. 188-1 at 2.

Plaintiff’s counsel subsequently reported

that “all counsel have put forth their best efforts to schedule
depositions of Erie County Sheriff Deputy defendants in the
related action Wyatt v. Kozlowski,” and that as of April 2023 he
was still awaiting dates of availability for other Erie County
individual defendants.

ECF No. 195 at 2.

The Court therefore

finds that judicial action with respect to such depositions
would be premature.
The Erie County Defendants address Plaintiff’s request for
Court intervention to the extent it is a motion to compel the
deposition of former Sheriff Howard.

The Erie County Defendants

argue that Sheriff Howard is a high-ranking government official
and, as such, may only be deposed in exceptional circumstances.
ECF No. 190-6 (citing Moriah v. Bank of China, 72 F. Supp. 3d
437, 440 (S.D.N.Y. 2014)).

The Second Circuit has held that “to

depose a high-ranking government official, a party must
demonstrate exceptional circumstances justifying the deposition
— for example, that the official has unique first-hand knowledge
related to the litigated claims or that the necessary
information cannot be obtained through other, less burdensome or

4

intrusive means.”

Lederman v. New York City Dep’t of Parks &

Recreation, 731 F.3d 199, 203 (2d Cir. 2013).
Plaintiff submits that, upon information and belief,
Sheriff Howard had a role in the investigation of Cummings’
death.

Plaintiff also contends that Sheriff Howard had personal

involvement with the creation of policies and procedures at the
Erie County Holding Center.

Finally, Plaintiff alleges that

Howard no longer serves as the Sheriff of Erie County and that a
deposition would thus not interfere with his ability to perform
his official duties.

While the Court accepts Plaintiffs’

representations and encourages the parties to reconsider
Howard’s availability for deposition, the Court will not compel
a deposition in the absence of a formal motion to compel.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 37.

See

Plaintiff’s motion to compel is denied

without prejudice.
The Erie County Defendants also object to any Court action
with respect to the deposition of a County representative,
arguing that the deposition notice is defective.

Plaintiff

responds that counsel “intends to confer in good faith in an
effort to schedule depositions with Defendant County of Erie.
If this Court so directs, an Amended Deposition Notice directed
to the County of Erie will be served.”

ECF No. 195-1.

The

Court therefore finds again that judicial action would be
premature, aside from noting that any deposition notice to the
5

County must follow the requirements in Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 30(b)(6).

The motion to strike is denied without

prejudice.
III. Bifurcation and Stay of Discovery
The Erie County Defendants, together with a group of
medical defendants,2 move the Court to bifurcate and stay
discovery relative to Plaintiff’s Monell claims, arguing that
Plaintiff should be required to show an underlying
constitutional violation before proceeding to discovery of
institutional policies or customs.

See, e.g., ECF No. 192-2 at

4; see also Segal v. City of New York, 459 F.3d 207, 219 (2d
Cir. 2006) (a municipality can face suit under Section 1983 only
if its “failure to train, or the policies or customs that it has
sanctioned, led to an independent constitutional violation”).
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c) allows the Court to
stay discovery upon a showing of good cause.
26(c).

Fed. R. Civ. P.

Under Federal Rule of Civil Procesure 26(b), “[a]

district court has wide latitude to determine the scope of
discovery.”

In re Agent Orange Prod. Liability Litig., 517 F.3d

76, 103 (2d Cir. 2008).

Courts utilize this broad discretion to

ensure that each party is “afforded a meaningful opportunity to

The medical defendant movants include Peter Martin, M.D.,
Evelyn Coggins, M.D., Tom Chapin, N.P., and University
Psychiatric Practice, Inc. See ECF No. 192-2.
2

6

establish the facts necessary to support his claim.”

Id at 103

(citing Long Island Lighting Co. v. Barbash, 779 F.2d 793, 795
(2d Cir. 1985)).
“As a general matter, courts in the Second Circuit favor
bifurcation of Monell discovery until at least a plaintiff has
survived summary judgment on the underlying issues of any
individual state actor in fact violated plaintiff's
constitutional rights.”

Gugino v. City of Buffalo, No. 21-CV-

283V(F), 2022 WL 5240162, at *2 (W.D.N.Y. Oct. 6, 2022); but see
Crawley v. City of Syracuse, No. 5:17-CV-1389, 2018 WL 3716782,
at *4 (N.D.N.Y. Aug. 3, 2018) (“Bifurcation is the exception
rather than the rule.”).

In determining whether to stay

discovery, a court should weigh, “the breadth of discovery
sought, the burden of responding to it, the prejudice that would
result to the party opposing the stay, and the strength of the
pending motion forming the basis of the request for stay.”
Republic of Turkey v. Christie’s, Inc., 316 F. Supp. 3d 675, 677
(S.D.N.Y. 2018) (citation omitted).
The Erie County Defendants represent that they do not
consider document requests for written policies and procedures
to be per se Monell discovery.

ECF No. 190-6 at 8 n.1.

would therefore apply primarily to depositions.

A stay

As noted above,

the scheduling of depositions in this case has been complicated
given the number of parties, attorneys, and pending actions
7

involved.

To delay consideration of Monell issues could

necessitate recalling certain witnesses, thus adding further
complexity to the Plaintiff’s already-challenging situation.
Furthermore, even if the Court finds that individual
defendants are not liable, as it might if they successfully
assert qualified immunity, the Court would nonetheless need to
determine whether the municipality is liable.

See Lopez v. City

of New York, No. 20-CV-2502 (LJL), 2021 WL 2739058, at *2
(S.D.N.Y. July 1, 2021).

Also, if the Court is asked to

consider qualified immunity defenses, it may not need to address
the alleged underlying constitutional violations, as it could
instead proceed to the question of whether such alleged
violations were clearly established.
566 U.S. 658, 664 (2012).

See Reichle v. Howards,

Such analysis would frustrate the

goal of bifurcation which, as movants argue, would be to delay
Monell discovery until the summary judgment on the question of
constitutional vioaltions.
Finally, this case has been pending since 2017.
Bifurcation would lead only to further delay.

The motions to

bifurcate and stay discovery are therefore denied.
Conclusion
For the reasons set forth above, the parties’ motions for
extension of time to conduct discovery (ECF Nos. 188, 190) are
granted; Plaintiff’s motion to compel depositions (ECF No. 188)
8

is denied; the Erie County Defendants’ motion to strike
Plaintiff’s notice of deposition (ECF No. 190) is denied; and
the pending motions to bifurcate and stay discovery (ECF Nos.
190, 192) are denied.

The parties shall submit to the Court a

revised, stipulated scheduling order within 30 days.
DATED at Burlington, Vermont, this 5th day of February,
2024.
/s/ William K. Sessions III
Hon. William K. Sessions III
U.S. District Court Judge

9