United States District Court, D. Connecticut
ORDER ON DISCOVERY DISPUTE
Jeffrey Alker Meyer United States District Judge
Bobby Johnson seeks to require defendants City of New Haven,
Francisco Ortiz, Patrick Redding, Herman Badger, and Andrew
Muro to produce four sets of documents as part of discovery
for his lawsuit against defendants and two other defendants
(Clarence Willoughby and Michael Quinn) for wrongful arrest,
conviction, and imprisonment. Doc. #99. Defendants have
objected to each request. Doc. #101. After considering the
submissions and arguments of the parties at a discovery
hearing on September 5, 2018, I overruled defendants'
objections to plaintiff's first and third requests and
overruled in part and sustained in part defendants'
objections to plaintiff's second and fourth requests for
the reasons stated on the record.
extent I overrule defendants' objections to any request,
I do so without prejudice to a document-by-document claim of
any state law statutory privacy privilege or the law
enforcement privilege. To the extent that defendants would
claim that all requested documents as a class are subject to
privilege, I overrule this claim and order the documents to
be produced in discovery. Any document-by-document claim of
privilege should be made in good faith accounting for the
time elapsed since the events and investigations at issue in
this case, and must be accompanied by a privilege log.
See In re City of New York, 607 F.3d 923, 944, 948
(2d Cir. 2010).
#1: New Haven Police Department (“NHPD”)
Investigation Files from the Howell, Bennett, and Wright
Murders Plaintiff's first request is for:
“NHPD investigative files from the following other
a. the December 24, 2006, Tony Howell murder;
b. the November 27, 2006, Robert Bennett murder; and
c. the June 23, 2005, Kevin Wright murder.”
Doc. #99 at 1. After considering defendants' objection to
the request and plaintiff's given reason for requesting
the files, I concluded that plaintiff requests documents that
are relevant to his claims, and so overruled defendants'
objection. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). Compare
Chepilko v. City of New York, 2012 WL 398700, at *15
(E.D.N.Y. 2012) (“Subsequent or contemporaneous conduct
can be circumstantial evidence of the existence of preceding
municipal policy or custom.”), with Connick v.
Thompson, 563 U.S. 51, 63 n.7 (2011)
(“[C]ontemporaneous or subsequent conduct cannot
establish a pattern of violations that would provide
‘notice to the cit[y] and the opportunity to conform to
constitutional dictates.'” (quoting City of
Canton v. Harris, 489 U.S. 378, 395 (1989)
(O'Connor, J., concurring in part and dissenting in
#2: Documents Relating to Larry Mabery and Richard
“Any of the following documents and information in the
NHPD's possession and control regarding the alleged true
perpetrators of the Fields homicide, Larry Mabery and Richard
a. cooperation agreements
b. documents related to either of these individuals working
as cooperating ...