White v. Cnty. of Suffolk

1

SAMUEL WHITE, Plaintiff, v. COUNTY OF SUFFOLK, SUFFOLK COUNTY POLICE DEPARTMENT, RONALD TAVARES, MICHAEL MILAU, SUFFOLK COUNTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S OFFICE, DARRYL LEVY, LAURA NEWCOMBE, THOMAS SPOTA, JOHN DOES 1-10, TIMOTHY SINI, OFFICE OF THE MEDICAL EXAMINER CRIME LABORATORY SUFFOLK COUNTY, HELEN WONG, ODETTE R. HALL, M.D., JOHN PETERSON and JAMES MCGUINESS, Defendants.

No. 20-CV-1501 (RER)(JMW)

United States District Court, E.D. New York

June 7, 2024

Stephanie McClure, Esq. Law Office of Stephanie McClure Attorney for Plaintiff

Stacy A. Skorupa, Esq. Suffolk County Department of Law H. Lee Dennison Building Attorneys for All Defendants (except Thomas Spota)

Anthony M. LaPinta, Esq. Kyle O.Wood, Esq. Law Offices of Anthony M. La Pinta Attorneys for Defendant Thomas Spota

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

James M. Wicks United States Magistrate Judge

Something is rotten, but contrary to Marcellus's suggestion to Horatio, it's not in Denmark. Rather, it's in discovery in modern federal civil litigation right here in the United States.^[1]

Plaintiff Samuel White (“Plaintiff”) commenced this Section 1983 civil rights action against Suffolk County, various other defendants (collectively, the “County Defendants”) and former District Attorney Thomas Spota (collectively, “Defendants”) on March 21, 2020 seeking monetary damages and non-monetary relief for alleged violations of due process and equal protection, false arrest malicious prosecution, denial of a fair trial, failure to intervene, denial of right to counsel, fabrication of evidence, presentation of false evidence to the grand jury and an appellate court, conspiracy, and failure to train or supervise. (See ECF No. 87.) In her March 31, 2023 Order granting in part and denying in part Defendants' respective dismissal motions (ECF No. 96, 97), District Judge Joanna Seybert returned this case to the undersigned to preside over the discovery phase of this action. (See ECF No. 130.) In January 2024, this case was re-assigned to District Judge Ramon E. Reyes, with the undersigned still presiding over discovery and pretrial matters. (See Electronic Entry dated January 23, 2024.)

Plaintiff has embarked on a seemingly never-ending quest for three categories of discovery documents and, as it turns out, the pursuit was not in the least Quixotic. Rather, the conduct Plaintiff complains of here - where the County repeatedly and adamantly denied possession of documents -- is reminiscent of the words uttered by Queen Gertrude in Hamlet, namely, “the lady doth protest too much, methinks.” The three categories sought are: (i) certain Internal Affairs files of non-defendant officers, as relating to Plaintiff's claim under Monell v. Dep't of Soc. Servs. of City of N.Y., 436 U.S. 658, 707 (1978) (the “Monell discovery”); (ii) Internal Affairs files which pertain to any officer involved in the thirteen specifically identified case files, identified earlier in discovery litigation - specifically, litigation documents including electronic copies of any depositions, sworn statements, signed statements, answers to interrogatories or responses to requests for admissions (the “Internal Affairs files”); and (iii) any/all documents that pertain to the federal criminal case against Defendant Thomas Spota (the “Spota Documents”). See ECF No. 149 at 4. On February 27, 2024, following a Status Conference with the parties, the undersigned directed the County Defendants to “produce the outstanding Monell discovery as it relates to the Federal Criminal investigation and case in which Defendant Spota was a party (the “Outstanding Monell Discovery”),” and, in light of the County Defendant's admission on the record to being in possession of the Outstanding Monell Discovery,^[2] further stated the Court would “consider an application for costs from Plaintiff's Counsel for having to continue to pursue these materials.” (ECF No. 160.) Plaintiff filed his First Motion for Sanctions on March 22, 2024 (ECF No. 171) and Second Motion for Sanctions on April 10, 2024. (ECF No. 177.) Plaintiff additionally filed a “Ninth” Motion to Compel (ECF No. 182) discovery previously ordered by this Court on February 27, 2024, and March 5, 2024, arguing that Defendants' production of said discovery was deficient. See ECF No. 160; Electronic Order dated March 5, 2024.

Accordingly, the latest motions before the Court are Plaintiff's: (i) First Motion for Sanctions as against the County Defendants (ECF No. 171), (ii) Second Motion for Sanctions as against the County Defendants (ECF No. 177), and (iii) “Ninth” Motion to Compel (ECF No. 182), all of which are opposed by Defendants (see ECF Nos. 185, 186). For the reasons that follow, Plaintiff's First Motion for Sanctions (ECF No. 171) is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part, Plaintiff's Second Motion for Sanctions (ECF No. 177) is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part, and Plaintiff's Ninth Motion to Compel (ECF No. 182) is GRANTED.

BACKGROUND

The Court assumes the parties' familiarity with the factual and procedural background of this case, as articulated in the undersigned's Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 124) District Judge Joanna Seybert's Partial Adoption Order (ECF No. 130), District Judge Reyes's Order Granting County Defendants' Motion for Protective Order (Electronic Order dated March 13, 2024), and the undersigned's Order granting the Federal Bureau of Investigation's (“FBI”) Motion for Reconsideration (Electronic Order dated April 9, 2024). Thus, only the facts relevant to Plaintiff's Sanctions Motions and Motion to Compel are outlined below.

Plaintiff filed his First Motion to Compel on April 15, 2021 (ECF No. 69), seeking Monell discovery, as well as records regarding the investigation of Mr. Spota, a surveillance video of the subject incident, and an underlying criminal file of Plaintiff, which was granted in part and denied in part. (ECF Nos. 69, 90.) As to the portion concerning the scope of Monell discovery, this Court held:

Plaintiff's motion to compel Monell-related discovery is granted in part as follows: Plaintiff shall provide Defendants with a list articulating the specific types of case files that are being sought, tailored to the claims being asserted in this case, on or before November 19, 2021, and Defendants shall respond on or before December 20, 2021. To the extent that Defendants do not have responsive documents, Defendants shall provide an affidavit stating so. This includes the demands for Monell discovery pertaining to Defendant Thomas Spota. As to Plaintiff's request for Monell discovery pertaining to the Keith Bush file and Martin Tankleff file, that is denied without prejudice, on the basis of Rule 26's prescription of proportionality.

(ECF No. 90.) Plaintiff filed a Second Motion to Compel discovery on December 31, 2021 (ECF No. 98), requesting Internal Affairs files from 2002 through July 2019 for 11 specific categories: Abuse of Authority, Biased Policing, Bribery/Official Misconduct, Civil Rights Violation-Other, Excessive Force, Fail to Perform Duty, False Arrest, Illegal Search/Seizure, Improper Supervision, Lying/False Statement, and Misconduct. (See ECF Nos. 105, 108, and 98.) Defendants subsequently agreed to: (i) provide files for each of the named Defendants that relate to the nature of the claims, regardless of outcome and substantiated findings; and (ii) provide Internal Affairs files for nondefendant officers that relate to the nature of the claim dating back to 2008 (more than 10 years prior to the filing of the Complaint) - however, Defendants “disputed whether Plaintiff [was] entitled to Monell discovery dating back to 2002 related to non-defendant officers, and whether the Internal Affairs files for non-defendant officers shall include all files whether substantiated or not.” (See ECF Nos. 107, 111.) This Court granted Plaintiff's Second Motion to Compel Monell discovery in part^[3], ordering Defendants to produce:

Named Defendants: the requested files that relate to the nature of the claim (i.e., the 11 specific categories Plaintiff identified), regardless of outcome and substantiated findings for any allegation, for the entire career of each named Defendant (Defendants have already agreed to provide such (See ECF No. 107)).

Non-Defendant Officers: Internal Affairs files that relate to the nature of the claim (i.e., the 11 specific categories Plaintiff identified), dating back to 2008 (Defendants have already agreed to provide such (See ECF No. 107)). Records dating back to 2014 shall include all records regardless of outcome and substantiated findings for any allegation.

(ECF No. 111.)

On November 19, 2023, Plaintiff filed his Third Motion to Compel (ECF No. 144), seeking Monell discovery, Internal Affairs files, and Spota Documents. Plaintiff argued Defendants did not produce five out of the eleven “categories” of Internal Affairs files -specifically documents relating to 1) Biased Policing; 2) Bribery and Official Misconduct; 3) Civil Rights; 4) Illegal Search and Seizure; and 5) Lying / False Statement - and, Defendants' production only included Internal Affairs files from 2014-2016, in violation of this Court's Order directing Defendants to provide all Internal Affairs files dating back to 2008. (See ECF Nos. 144, 111.) Plaintiff additionally argued Defendants' production “should have included those Internal Affairs files which pertain to any officer involved in the ‘thirteen specifically identified case files' identified earlier in discovery litigation.” (ECF No. 144.) With respect to these thirteen cases, Plaintiff claimed that Defendants' production was incomplete, and requested “litigation documents, including electronic copies of any depositions, sworn statements, signed statements, answers to interrogatories, or ...