Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Bender v. Valle

June 25, 2007

SHERRY BENDER, PLAINTIFF,
v.
ARIEL DEL VALLE, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.



The opinion of the court was delivered by: Ronald L. Ellis, United States Magistrate Judge

MEMORANDUM OPINION & ORDER

I. INTRODUCTION

Plaintiff, Sherry Bender ("Bender"), filed this action alleging numerous civil rights violations during an altercation with authorities at the office of the Social Security Administration, which ended in Bender's arrest. At a conference with the Court on May 31, 2007, plaintiff, Sherry Bender ("Bender"), raised several discovery concerns. All defendants were ordered to respond in writing to the issues raised by Bender, and Bender was ordered to respond in writing to a letter dated May 14, sent to her from the Bivens defendants. Having received responses from all parties, the Court issues this Order to clarify the state of discovery and summarize the governing deadlines.

Also before this Court are two requests, one by defendants Carlos Ortiz, Stephen Bekesy, and Richard Matos (collectively, the "Bivens defendants") and one by the City of New York ("the City"), to permit an additional seven hours of deposition of Bender. For the following reasons, the Bivens defendants request is DENIED, and the City's request is GRANTED, in part.

II. BACKGROUND

A. Deposition of Bender

On January 30, 2007, Bender was deposed in this action. Letter from Brian Feldman, February 23, 2007 (2/23/07 Letter), Exh. A. The deposition commenced at 10:19 a.m., and was terminated by counsel for Bivens defendants at 4:48 p.m. Id. The total time taken for actual deposition of Bender was four (4) hours and twenty-three (23) minutes. Id. at 2 n. *. On February 23, the Bivens defendants moved for an order permitting them to conduct more than seven hours of deposition of Bender. Id. at 1. Bender opposed this request, and, on March 1, a conference was held with the parties. At the conference, the Court granted the Bivens defendants' request for an additional day of deposition, but instructed the parties that the time was to be shared among all defendants. Conference Transcript, March 1, 2007 ("3/1 Tr."), at 8:2-9, 14:17 -15:7, 15:13-20, 16:1-8, 16:11-18. The Court also specified that the deposition should be "[o]ne full day allowed by the rules." 3/1 Tr. at 21:1. On May 11, defendants deposed Bender for a second time. Bender Deposition Transcript, May 11, 2007 ("5/11 Tr."). The deposition commenced at 10:13 a.m., and was terminated by Bender at 6:07 p.m. Id. at 322:4, 723:24-724:3, 725:10-11. On May 17, the Bivens defendants asked the Court to permit them to conduct an additional seven (7) hours of deposition. Letter from Brian Feldman, May 16, 2007 ("5/16 Letter"), at 1. The Bivens defendants state that they need the additional time because Bender has not testified 1) with the aid of a surveillance video, which she claims would refresh her recollection; 2) about claims of damages or malicious prosecution; and 3) about her admission to the hospital on the date of the incident. Id. The City also wrote the Court to request an additional seven (7) hours of deposition. Letter from Julinda Dawkins, May 18, 2007 ("5/18 Letter"), at 1. The City states that the defendants had agreed that the Bivens defendants would question Bender about events germane to all defendants, and the City would then conduct an inquiry into events pertaining only to claims against the City. Id. However, the City alleges that it was not able to conduct this inquiry because Bender terminated the deposition early, not taking into account several breaks and a lunch the parties had taken throughout the day. Id. The City also claims that they need additional time so as to complete a "fair examination," and that it will be prejudiced without such an opportunity. Id. at 2. Defendants Ariel del Valle and HWA Security did not make an application to the Court for additional time.

B. Outstanding Discovery

On October 12, 2006, this Court ordered that the deadline for filing all remaining requests for discovery would be October 27, 2006. On December 5, 2006, the Court ordered that there be no new discovery filings because of the numerous discovery extensions that have been granted in the case. In her December 13 letter, Bender stated that she had believed she would have until thirty days prior to the end of discovery to file new discovery requests, and asked that the deadline for new discovery filings be extended until December 31, 2006.Taking the plaintiff's pro se status into consideration, the Court extended the deadline for filing all discovery requests in this case was extended to January 2, 2007. This order was issued on December 22, 2006. While there were no further extensions to the deadline for filing discovery requests, because of the parties' difficulties in complying with discovery, the Court gave the parties until May 31 to finish discovery. All discovery was to be completed by this date, unless specifically approved by the Court.

On January 8, 2007, the parties appeared for a conference with the Court, where Bender informed the Court that she intended to take twenty non-party depositions. The Court indicated that it would not permit twenty depositions, and ordered Bender to submit to the Court a list of non-parties she wanted to depose, stating the relevance of each of those persons. On January 22, the Court received a letter from Bender requesting leave of the Court to depose three non-parties: Marcia Wald, Beatrice Disman, and Jose Aybar.After reviewing Bender's submission, the Court denied Bender's request to depose upon oral examination Wald, Disman, and Aybar, but granted her leave to submit additional information as to the relevancy of Disman's testimony by February 22, and to depose upon written questions Wald and Aybar. Bender was ordered to serve Wald and Aybar by March 5.

Bender made a renewed application to depose Wald, which was granted by Order dated April 10. Also in the April 10 Order, the Court directed defendant New York City to submit for in camera review all disciplinary records and complaints requested by Bender for the four New York City Police officers who had been disclosed as witnesses, whether or not such complaints had been sustained, for the period three years before the incident at the heart of this lawsuit through the present. On May 7, the Court granted Bender permission to submit a supplemental list of newly discovered third-party witnesses that she requests leave to depose, stating the relevancy of each, within a reasonable time, not to exceed thirty (30) days, after she had been made aware of their relevance by defendants through deposition or other discovery.

III. DISCUSSION

A. Standard of Review

The Court has broad discretion in managing discovery. Wills v. Amerada Hess Corp., 379 F.3d 32, 41 (2d Cir. 2004); In re Fitch, Inc., 330 F.3d 104, 108 (2d Cir. 2003); Cruden v. Bank of New York, 957 F.2d 961, 972 (2d Cir. 1992). Under Rule 32(d) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.