United States District Court, S.D. New York
February 25, 2004.
ROY COMMER, Plaintiff, -against- GERALD McENTEE, JOHN SEFERIAN, THE AMERICAN FEDERATION OF STATE, COUNTY AND MUNICIPAL EMPLOYEES, DISTRICT COUNCIL 37, AFSCME, STANLEY HILL, MARTIN LUBIN, MARK SHAPLO, ROBERT MEYER, RALPH PEPE, LOUIS ALBANO, ROBERT MARIANO, UMA KUTWAL, MICHELLE KELLER, JOHN DOES 1-30, and RUDOLPH GIULIANi, as Mayor of the City of New York, Defendants
The opinion of the court was delivered by: ROBERT SWEET, Senior District Judge
Plaintiff Roy Commer, pro se, ("Commer") has
again sought discovery and documents from the defendant unions and
certain of their officers. For the reasons set forth below, the motion is
Familiarity with the following orders and decisions is assumed:
Commer v. McEntee, 283 F. Supp.2d 93 (S.D.N.Y. 2003);
Commer v. McEntee, 2003 WL 1878239 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 11, 2003);
Commer v. Giuliani, 34 Fed.Appx. 802, 2002 WL 826462 (2d Cir.
May 1, 2002); Commer v. McEntee, 145 F. Supp.2d 333 (S.D.N.Y.
2001); Commer v. McEntee, 2001 WL 274125 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 19,
2001); Commer v. McEntee, 121 F. Supp.2d 388 (S.D.N.Y. 2000).
Based upon these prior proceedings the issue presented by this action is
whether or not the proceedings taken against Commer between November 1998
May 2000 were intended to suppress his First Amendment rights
rather than to enforce certain of the union procedures. The discovery
ordered to date has sought to address the knowledge of the defendants
during the relevant period.
The present motion by Commer appears to seek evidence relating to a
wide-ranging catalogue of malefactions by the defendants without a
temporal connection to the issue in this action or any indication of an
interrelationship between these alleged acts and the proceedings taken
against Commer. In addition, Commer requests the same categories of
documents that he requested in his motion to compel filed in March 2003.
Commer's request was denied, apart from the discovery relevant to the one
remaining claim. See Commer, 2003 WL 1878239, at *2. Nothing
has changed since that time which would require that discovery be further
For these reasons, the motion is denied.
It is so ordered.
© 1992-2004 VersusLaw Inc.