McCloud, Jr. v. City of New York et al

1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
----------------------------------------------------------X
ARMOND MCCLOUD, JR,
ORDER
23 CV 8341 (NRM) (CLP)
Plaintiff,
-against-
THE CITY OF NEW YORK, et al.,
Defendant.
----------------------------------------------------------X
POLLAK, United States Magistrate Judge:
On November 9, 2023, plaintiff Armond McCloud commenced this action against the
City of New York, Carlos Gonzalez, Marianne Herbert, Thomas Wray, Glen Bove, James
Girdusky, Joseph Croce, Michael Dempsey, Administrator of the Estate of Vincent Greco,
Maureen Kempton, Edward Garnar, Rubin Martinez, Alquimides Arroyo, and John and Jane Doe
1-10, seeking damages pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1988, the Fourth, Fifth, Sixth and
Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution of the United States, and the laws of the City and
State of New York, based upon plaintiff’s wrongful conviction on charges of murder in the
second degree and criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, following a jury trial in
Queens County, for which he received a sentence of 25 years to life on April 15, 1996.
(Compl.1).
In August 2023, plaintiff McCloud was exonerated after having been incarcerated for 29
years for the August 4, 1994, murder of Kei Sunada (hereinafter “the Sunada murder”). (Compl.
¶¶ 24, 36). The only substantive evidence in plaintiff’s criminal case, on which his conviction
was based, was plaintiff’s confession to the crime. (Id. ¶ 41). Plaintiff confessed to killing
1 Citations to “Compl.” refer to plaintiff’s Complaint, filed November 9, 2023 (ECF No. 1).
Case 1:23-cv-08341-NRM-CLP Document 72 Filed 12/29/25 Page 1 of 17 PageID #:
<pageID>

2
Sunada after hours of police interrogation, precipitated by the interrogation of several
individuals, including one who implicated plaintiff, and plaintiff’s eventual co-defendant. (Id. ¶¶
73, 79, 90, 194). Plaintiff’s indictment was dismissed in 2023 in light of the QDA’s Conviction
Integrity Unit (CIU)’s determination that plaintiff’s confession had been coerced by defendant
Gonzalez, who had been involved in coercing false confessions in other cases. (Id. ¶¶ 22-24). In
November 2023, plaintiff commenced this action bringing federal and state law claims for
violations of his rights.
Plaintiff served defendant City of New York with his discovery demands on February 15,
2025. (Pl.’s Mot.2 at 1). Over the next year and a half, the parties engaged in extended back-
and-forth and conferral in an attempt to resolve discovery disputes that arose. (Id. at 2). On
August 29, 2025, after defendants cancelled the most recent meet and confer, plaintiffs filed a
letter Motion to compel defendants to “comply with their discovery obligations.” (Pl.’s Mot.).
This Motion is currently pending before this Court. On October 3, 2025, plaintiff filed a second
letter with the Court, indicating the status of depositions and the death of defendant Edward
Garnar (ECF No. 69). For the reasons set forth below, the Court grants plaintiff’s Motion in part
and denies it in part.
DISCUSSION
A. Legal Standards
Rule 26(b)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides that parties “may obtain
discovery regarding any nonprivileged material that is relevant to any party’s claim or defense
2 Citations to “Pl.’s Mot.” refer to plaintiff’s Letter Motion to Compel Discovery, filed August 29, 2025
(ECF No. 65).
Case 1:23-cv-08341-NRM-CLP Document 72 Filed 12/29/25 Page 2 of 17 PageID #:
<pageID>

3
and proportional to the needs of the case.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). Relevancy under Rule 26
has been “‘construed broadly to encompass any matter that bears on, or that reasonably could
lead to other matter that could bear on, any issue that is or may be in th[e] case.’” Giacchetto v.
Patchogue-Medford Union Free Sch. Dist., 293 F.R.D. 112, 114 (E.D.N.Y. May 6, 2013)
(alteration in original) (quoting Oppenheimer Fund, Inc. v. Sanders, 437 U.S. 340, 351 (1978)).
In reviewing plaintiff’s motion, the Court considers that while the scope of discovery is “broad,”
it is not “limitless.” Fears v. Wilhelmina Model Agency, Inc., No. 02 CV 4911, 2004 WL
719185, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 1, 2004). The party seeking discovery must show tha t it is not
engaging in “merely a fishing expedition.” Carl v. Edwards, No. 16 CV 3863, 2017 WL
4271443, at *3 (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 25, 2017) (quoting Barbara v. MarineMax, Inc., No. 12 CV 368,
2013 WL 1952308, at *2 (E.D.N.Y. May 10, 2013)).
Courts have recognized that plaintiffs bringing a federal civil rights action have a “strong
interest in obtaining records relevant to” their claims. Owens v. County of Monroe, No. 21 CV
6445, 2025 WL 1902225, at *4 (W.D.N.Y. July 10, 2025). In these cases, there are “strong
federal interests in broad discovery and truth-seeking.” Crosby v. City of New York, 269 F.R.D.
267, 274 (S.D.N.Y. 2010) (internal quotations omitted).
B. Privilege Log
Plaintiff complains that the City has invoked privilege in response to approximately 30 of
plaintiff’s discovery requests and has made substantive redactions to more than 20 pages of
disciplinary summaries. (Pl.’s Mot. at 2). Plaintiff seeks an Order compelling the City to
produce a privilege log for the withheld material. (Id.) As for the redacted materials, plaintiff
asserts that defendants refuse to explain the redactions, and indeed, over a year ago, counsel for
defendants conceded that she did not know why the redactions had been made. (Id., n.2).
Case 1:23-cv-08341-NRM-CLP Document 72 Filed 12/29/25 Page 3 of 17 PageID #:
<pageID>

4
Plaintiff seeks an Order requiring defendants to reproduce the documents in unredacted form by
a date certain. (Id.)
In their response, filed September 8, 2025, defendants decline to provide a privilege log
and instead ask the Court to rule on their objections to plaintiff’s Document Request Nos. 45, 46,
47 and 49. (Defs.’ Opp.3 at 3).
Upon review of the parties’ arguments, the Court Orders defendants to produce a
privilege log to plaintiff and the Court by January 23, 2026, regarding any documents for which
defendants claim privilege. Document Request Nos. 45, 46, 47 and 49 are discussed in more
detail below.
Document Request No. 45 seeks all documents relevant to formal or informal complaints
made against any NYPD officer or employee concerning their conduct during the course of the
investigation or re-investigation of this case or the cases of the other Sunada suspects, including
plaintiff’s co-defendant, and lists four subcategories of documents: documents generated,
received or maintained by the Internal Affairs division; by any other entity; contained in the
NYPD computers; and all information received pursuant to subpoenas during the pretrial and
trial stages of this case or that of any other Sunada suspects. (ECF No. 65-1, Req. No. 45).
Defendants objected on grounds of overbreadth, disproportionality to the needs of the
case, and on the grounds that some of the documents sought “may be protected by law
enforcement privilege, official information privilege and/or other applicable privileges.” (ECF
No. 65-2 at 25). Defendants indicated in their response that they would provide documents
3 Citations to “Defs.’ Opp.” refer to defendants’ Response in Opposition re Letter Motion to Compel
Discovery, filed September 8, 2025 (ECF No. 67).
Case 1:23-cv-08341-NRM-CLP Document 72 Filed 12/29/25 Page 4 of 17 PageID #:
<pageID>

5
relating to civilian complaints of a similar nature, that are otherwise available publicly or involve
the officers’ character for truthfulness for 10 years prior to the incident, and, if appropriate, the
defendants’ IAB resumes and CPI’s subject to a protective order. (Id. at 26).
Defendants represent that on August 4, 2025, they produced 950 pages of responsive
documents, including personnel files, patrol guide sections, and relevant portions of the NYPD’s
detective guide. (Defs.’ Opp. at 2). They are Ordered to confirm in writing by January 23,
2026, that they have produced all documents falling into the categories that they have
represented in their response they will produce. Since they have indicated there are documents
subject to the privileges set forth above, defendants are also Ordered to provide a privilege log
by the same date with respect to any documents withheld pursuant to those or any other
privileges, or state that no documents have been withheld on grounds of privilege.
Document Request No. 46 seeks documents concerning any complaints, investigations,
and/or disciplinary action brought against any prosecutor in connection with this or any other
case involving the Sunada suspects. (ECF No. 65-1, Req. No. 46). Defendants’ response raises
the same objections as to burden, proportionality, and privilege, but unlike in their response to
Request No. 45, defendants refuse to provide documents. (ECF No. 67-2 at 26-27).
Defendants are Ordered to search for and provide any responsive documents in their
possession, custody or control. Again, defendants are Ordered to provide a privilege log by
January 23, 2026, with respect to any documents withheld on privilege grounds. To the extent
that no responsive documents exist, defendants are to provide a Declaration to that effect.
Document Request No. 47 asks for records of disciplinary action taken against any of the
individual defendants as a result of their conduct in this case or the cases of the other Sunada
Case 1:23-cv-08341-NRM-CLP Document 72 Filed 12/29/25 Page 5 of 17 PageID #:
<pageID>

6
suspects, including plaintiff’s co-defendant. (ECF No. 65-1, Req. No. 47). Defendants’
response simply refers to their objections and responses to Request No. 45. (ECF No. 67-2 at
27).
This is insufficient and an inappropriate response. Under Federal Rule 34, governing the
production of documents, a party objecting to a discovery demand must “state with specificity
the grounds for objecting to the request, including the reasons.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 34(b)(2)(B). It
is well-established that “[a] party resisting discovery has the burden of showing ‘specifically
how, despite the broad and liberal construction afforded the federal discovery rules, each
interrogatory is not relevant or how each question is overly broad, burdensome or oppressive, . . .
submitting affidavits or offering evidence revealing the nature of the burden.’” Vidal v. Metro-
N. Commuter R. Co., No. 12 CV 248, 2013 WL 1310504, at *1 (D. Conn. Mar. 28, 2013)
(quoting Compagnie Francaise d’Assurance Pour le Com. Exterieur v. Phillips Petroleum Co.,
105 F.R.D. 16, 42 (S.D.N.Y. 1984)). “[B]oilerplate objections that include unsubstantiated
claims of undue burden, overbreadth and lack of relevancy” are “a paradigm of discovery
abuse.” Jacoby v. Hartford Life & Acc. Ins. Co., 254 F.R.D. 477, 478 (S.D.N.Y. 2009).
Here, in objecting to Document Request No. 47, defendants reference their objections
and response to Document Request No. 45 (ECF No. 65-2 at 27), without any details or
explanation as to why their objections of overbreadth, disproportionality, or privilege apply.
Parties are obligated to provide specific grounds for objecting to discovery requests, which
includes explaining the nature of the burden they allege prevents them from producing
responsive documents. Document Request No. 45 relates to formal and informal complaints
against NYPD officers investigating the Sunada suspects, while Document Request No. 47
relates to disciplinary actions against NYPD officers as a result of their conduct in the cases of
Case 1:23-cv-08341-NRM-CLP Document 72 Filed 12/29/25 Page 6 of 17 PageID #:
<pageID>

7
the Sunada suspects; these document requests, though regarding similar subject matter, are not
identical. To the extent that defendants are relying on their response to Request No. 45, their
promise to produce certain records was limited to “civilian complaints”; Request No. 47 seeks
charges and specifications, command discipline, or minor violations brought by the police
department; these may or may not have been related to civilian complaints.
In addition, the Court finds that the request for disciplinary actions connected to this case
is not overly broad, nor would it presumably be burdensome; if there are a considerable number
of documents related to discipline resulting from this case or the cases of the related Sunada
suspects, that fact alone, not to mention the contents of the documents, would be highly relevant
to plaintiff’s claims. Defendants are Ordered to undertake a search and produce any responsive
documents or indicate in a Declaration that all such documents have previously been produced
(and provide Bates Nos.) or that no such responsive documents exist.
Document Request No. 49 asks for personnel records with respect to each individual
defendant and lists 18 specific categories. (ECF No. 65-1, Req. No. 49). Defendants object on
grounds of overbreadth, proportionality, and the fact that the request is not limited in time or
scope and seeks information that is unrelated to the incident in question, is private, or may be
protected by various privileges, including HIPAA, or sealed pursuant to N.Y. Crim. Proc. L. §§
160.50/160.55. (ECF No. 65-2 at 29-30). Defendants indicate that they will produce documents
limited to civilian complaints as set forth in response to Document Request No. 45. (Id. at 30).
The Court agrees that this request, with its numerous categories, is overbroad. Counsel
for plaintiff and defendants are Ordered to meet and confer to narrow the scope of this request.
To the extent that defendants continue to withhold documents on grounds of privilege, they must
provide a privilege log, to be shared with plaintiff and the Court, by January 23, 2026.
Case 1:23-cv-08341-NRM-CLP Document 72 Filed 12/29/25 Page 7 of 17 PageID #:
<pageID>

8
Plaintiff also notes that the City indicated an intention to supplement responses to eleven
of plaintiff’s requests and interrogatories by May 6, 2024, but that no such supplementation has
occurred. (Pl.’s Mot. at 2, n.3 (citing Ex. 2, Resp. to Doc. Req. Nos. 1-2, 15-16, 21, 26, 45, 49,
61 and Interr. Nos. 5 and 8)). Defendants did not respond specifically to this issue in their
September 8, 2025, letter so it is unclear whether their August production has sufficiently
responded to plaintiff’s concern. Defendants are Ordered to inform the Court via a Declaration
by January 23, 2026, as to the status of defendants’ responses to these eleven requests and
interrogatories.
C. Individual Defendants’ Responses
Plaintiff also complains that despite being served with discovery demands on May 21,
2024, the individual defendants have not responded, nor have they sought extensions of time
from the Court. (Pl.’s Mot. at 3 (citing Exs. 4, 5)). Plaintiff seeks an Order compelling their
responses, but notes a willingness to accept verified answers to interrogatories from each
defendant, along with a certification that each has read the document requests, conducted a
reasonable search, and provided any responsive records to Corporation Counsel. (Id.)
In response, defendants note that most of the requests were duplicative of those served
upon the City. (Defs.’ Opp. at 3). They have, however, agreed to plaintiff’s suggested
compromise, thus mooting this issue. Defendants requested thirty days to comply with
plaintiff’s request.
Defendants are to confirm in writing by January 23, 2026, that they have provided these
responses.
Case 1:23-cv-08341-NRM-CLP Document 72 Filed 12/29/25 Page 8 of 17 PageID #:
<pageID>

9
D. Disciplinary and Personnel Records of Defendants
Plaintiff seeks production of the complete personnel and disciplinary files of the
individual defendants, many of which are likely maintained in paper files given that the events at
issue occurred in the early 1990s. (Pl.’s Mot. at 3). According to plaintiff, despite the demand,
“defendants have not even produced a fraction of the summaries available,” and even that
production has been produced in redacted form without a privilege log. (Id.)
Plaintiff contends that the case law is clear that “‘disciplinary records involving
complaints of a similar nature, whether substantiated or unsubstantiated, could lead to evidence
that would be admissible at trial and thus, are discoverable.’” (Id. (quoting Bell v. City of New
York, No. 13 CV 5447, 2015 WL 5437306, at *2 (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 15, 2015))).
Defendants respond by citing Local Civil Rule 83.10 of the Southern District of New
York, to argue that they are only required to produce CCRB records and the IAB closing report
regarding the incident that forms the basis of the complaint, and CCRB and CPI indices of
complaints or incidents that are similar to the incident alleged in the complaint or that raise
questions about defendants’ credibility. (Defs.’ Opp. at 4).
Local Civil Rule 83.10 of the Joint Local Rules of the District Courts for the Southern
and Eastern Districts of New York explicitly applies to the “Southern District Only.” Local Civ.
R. 83.10. Even setting aside the fact that the Southern District rule is not binding on this Court,
defendants’ letter tellingly fails to indicate whether they have even produced documents in
conformity with that Rule. Defendants are Ordered to produce the requested disciplinary and
personnel records, limited to complaints of a similar nature and misconduct relevant to
credibility, whether substantiated or not. To the extent that they withhold or redact documents
Case 1:23-cv-08341-NRM-CLP Document 72 Filed 12/29/25 Page 9 of 17 PageID #:
<pageID>

10
based on privilege, defendants are required to provide a privilege log or explain in writing the
basis for the redactions, by January 23, 2026.
E. 	Defendant Gonzalez’s Other Cases
Plaintiff seeks information regarding other cases involving defendant Gonzalez beyond
those already known to plaintiff: Johnny Hincapie (Hincapie v. City of New York, 18 CV 3432,
2022 WL 2870411 (S.D.N.Y. 2022)) and the Exonerated Five (People v. Wise, 194 Misc. 2d
481, 752 N.Y.S.2d 837 (Sup. Ct. 2002)). (Pl.’s Mot. at 4). Notably, plaintiff further complains
that even regarding those two cases known to plaintiff, the City has refused to provide “any
documents.” (Id., n.5). Noting that the district court in Hamilton v. City of New York, No. 15
CV 4575 (E.D.N.Y. Oct. 30, 2019), authorized the admission of “similar act” evidence from a
former criminal defendant who had also been coerced into a confession by the defendant officer
in the case, and permitted cross-examination of the defendant officer as to adverse judicial
findings of credibility, plaintiff contends that his need for this information is “paramount” and he
should be able to review the other cases involving defendant Gonzalez and question him about
them. (Id. (citing Heggs v. City of New York, 17 CV 3234, 2019 WL 13294646 at *3 (E.D.N.Y.
Mar. 11, 2019))).
In addition to raising an objection based on the privacy of non-parties, defendants
respond by noting that the NYPD does not maintain a list of cases in which Gonzalez was
present during a confession. (Defs.’ Opp. at 4). At best, defendants state that they could produce
a list of arrests made by Gonzalez, but defendants contend that that would not be responsive, nor
would it include cases involving confessions where Gonzalez was not the arresting officer. (Id.)
The Court agrees that plaintiff’s request for “available information regarding Gonzalez’s
Case 1:23-cv-08341-NRM-CLP Document 72 Filed 12/29/25 Page 10 of 17 PageID #:
<pageID>

11
other cases” (Pl.’s Mot. at 4, n.6) is overly broad. However, as the Court has addressed
extensively in its Order dated September 23, 2025 (ECF No. 68), information that could lead to
direct evidence of Gonzalez using coercive tactics in other investigations is directly and highly
relevant to plaintiff’s claims. Thus, while defendants may not have any way to search for such
responsive records, if they or their clients are aware of any other matters responsive to plaintiff’s
inquiry, they are required to identify them. In addition, defendants shall submit a Declaration
from NYPD stating that it is impossible to compile a list of cases in which Detective Gonzalez
was involved in obtaining a confession. If any recordings of interrogations involving Gonzalez
exist, transcripts shall be made and produced, and all such existing transcripts shall be produced,
with all identifying information of the interrogated individual redacted. If defendant Gonzalez is
aware of any cases in which he was professionally involved, in which an individual allegedly
made a confession during Gonzalez’s involvement in the case, Gonzalez shall disclose that
information. To protect non-parties’ privacy, all information involving non-parties shall be
produced subject to a protective order, and identifying information shall be redacted as to the
names of any non-parties.
F. 	Officer Photographs
Plaintiff seeks labeled color photographs of the individual defendants, noting that he will
be required to reconstruct the overnight hours of his interrogation. (Pl.’s Mot. at 4). Given that
no notes were taken during the interrogation, and the interrogators are now much older with
appearances that have changed since 1994, the photographs may be useful in refreshing
memories. Other courts have ordered the production of such photographs. See, e.g., Snoussi v.
Bivona, No. 05 CV 3133, 2009 WL 701007, *3 (E.D.N.Y. Mar. 10, 2009).
Defendants respond by indicating that they have requested such photographs from the
Case 1:23-cv-08341-NRM-CLP Document 72 Filed 12/29/25 Page 11 of 17 PageID #:
<pageID>

12
NYPD and will produce them, subject to a confidentiality stipulation, thus mooting this issue.
(Defs.’ Opp. at 4).
Defendants are directed to notify this Court by January 23, 2026, whether these
photographs have now been provided.
G. Precinct Movement Records
Plaintiff also seeks discovery on the sequence of events preceding his interrogation in
order to identify witnesses to the process. (Pl.’s Mot. at 5). Although defendants have produced
an excerpt from a command log that predates plaintiff’s arrest, plaintiff contends that the
defendants were obligated to undertake a good faith search for records and either produce them
or state that none can be found. (Id. (citing Ex. 2, Resp. to Doc. Req. Nos. 1(o), (p), (v), (x), (z),
(aa), (ff), (oo), (pp), and Interrog. Nos. 1-2, 4)).
In responding to this request, defendants suggest that it is merely a “fishing expedition.”
(Defs.’ Opp. at 4-5). Nevertheless, they have produced the command logs from the 110 th
Precinct for August 3, 1994, through August 5, 1994, and the DD5s which were contained in the
District Attorney’s Office file. (Id. at 5). Defendants indicate that they have asked for additional
command logs and roll calls from August 7, 1994, through August 9, 1994, when plaintiff may
have been present in the precinct following his arrest. (Id.)
Defendants are Ordered to confirm by January 23, 2026, that these documents have been
produced, as well as which records, if any, cannot be located.
H. Supplemental Discovery Responses
Plaintiff contends that the City was obligated to conduct a reasonable search and respond
Case 1:23-cv-08341-NRM-CLP Document 72 Filed 12/29/25 Page 12 of 17 PageID #:
<pageID>

13
to plaintiff’s discovery requests substantively 18 months ago when the requests were served.
(Pl.’s Mot. at 5). Instead, plaintiff asserts that the City “has stonewalled plaintiff with boilerplate
responses that it unreasonably refuses to correct.” (Id. (citing Ex. 10)). Plaintiff contends that it
appears as if defendants’ counsel has not even requested the material at issue. (Id.)
Defendants object to plaintiff’s supplemental discovery requests, arguing that they are not
“reasonable, proportional, or relevant.” (Defs.’ Opp. at 5). Specifically, defendants object to
plaintiff’s request for supplemental responses to Document Request Nos. 1, 2-5, 7-10, 12-19, 21-
22, 23-48(a-r), 49-58, 60-61, and Interrog. Nos. 1, 2-5, 8-19, 21-22. (Id.)
As discussed above regarding Discovery Request Nos. 45, 46, 47, and 49, boilerplate
objections that do not specify the reasons a request might be burdensome, or that the requested
information might be privileged or sealed, are improper. To the extent defendants’ responses to
Document Request Nos. 1, 2-5, 7-10, 12-19, 21-22, 23-48(a-r), 49-58, 60-61 simply incorporate
by reference defendants’ objections to other requests – for example, defendants’ response to
Document Request No. 30 (ECF No. 65-2 at 18) simply says “see Objections and Responses to
Document Requests Nos. 1-29” – defendants have waived their objections and are Ordered to
supplement their responses in accordance with this Order by January 23, 2026. As for the
requests to which defendants have responded that they are continuing to search for responsive
documents (see, e.g., defendants’ responses to Document Request No. 1, ECF No. 65-2 at 7),
defendants are Ordered to provide an update by the same date, regarding their continued efforts
to produce responsive documents. The parties are under an affirmative obligation to supplement
their responses to discovery requests when additional information becomes available.
To the extent that defendants argue that certain records are sealed pursuant to state law –
for example, the documents relating to the video recordings of statements by the Sunada suspects
Case 1:23-cv-08341-NRM-CLP Document 72 Filed 12/29/25 Page 13 of 17 PageID #:
<pageID>

14
as mentioned in Document Request No. 61 – the defendants are reminded, as explained in detail
in the Court’s Order dated September 23, 2025 (ECF No. 68), that “when a plaintiff sues in
federal court to vindicate federal civil rights, ‘New York state law does not govern
discoverability and confidentiality[.]’” Howard v. City of Rochester, 758 F. Supp. 3d 109, 121
(W.D.N.Y. 2024) (quoting King v. Conde, 121 F.R.D. 180, 187 (E.D.N.Y. 1988)); see also
Crosby v. City of New York, 269 F.R.D. 267, 274 (S.D.N.Y. 2010) (holding that “in cases
presenting federal questions, such as here, discoverability, privileges, and confidentiality are
governed by federal law, not state law”). Of course, “in the interest of comity, [federal] courts
should attempt to recognize state privileges where this can be accomplished at no substantial cost
to federal substantive and procedural policy.” Manzi v. DiCarlo, 982 F. Supp. 125, 131
(E.D.N.Y. 1997) (quotation omitted); see also Owens v. County of Monroe, No. 21 CV 6445,
2025 WL 1902225, at *2 (W.D.N.Y. July 10, 2025) (quoting Manzi v. DiCarlo); Coleman v.
County. of Suffolk, 174 F. Supp. 3d 747, 757 (E.D.N.Y. 2016), aff’d by, 685 F. App’x 69 (2d
Cir. 2017). In federal civil rights cases such as this one, there are “strong federal interests in
broad discovery and truth-seeking” which state privilege rules “should not be permitted to
frustrate.” Crosby v. City of New York, 269 F.D.R. at 274 (internal quotations omitted).
As such, this Court must “balance the deference to be accorded state-created privileges
with the need for the information to be protected by the privilege,” id. at 275, in determining
what records shall be produced. The Court has found that plaintiff has a substantial need for
certain information relating to the interrogation of the Sunada suspects, and has found, further,
that the privacy interests protected by N.Y. Pen. L. §§ 160.50/160.55, et seq, can be adequately
protected by use of a protective order and redactions. Id. (stating that “[t]he worthy goals
of Section[ ] 160.50 . . . as well as a litigant's need for pertinent discovery can usually be honored
Case 1:23-cv-08341-NRM-CLP Document 72 Filed 12/29/25 Page 14 of 17 PageID #:
<pageID>

15
simultaneously by redaction of information that identifies, directly or indirectly, persons entitled
to protection under these statutes”).
In light of the above guidance, defendants shall supplement their responses by January
23, 2026, indicating the status of defendants’ continued search for responsive documents. The
parties shall submit a Status Report by January 30, 2026, identifying which Document Requests
still require Court resolution.
I. 	Gonzalez’s Trip to Japan
Plaintiff believes that following the murder of Kei Sunada, the NYPD authorized
defendant Gonzalez to travel to Japan with the victim’s father to promote gun control efforts.
(Pl.’s Mot. at 5). According to plaintiff, the City originally responded that it was searching for
such information and would supplement its response, but never did, and now takes the position
that the trip was not authorized by the NYPD and there are no responsive documents. (Id. (citing
Ex. 10)). Plaintiff seeks an Order compelling Gonzalez to search for responsive records and
confer with the City relating to his understanding of the NYPD’s role in this trip. (Id.)
In response, the City indicates that as of the date of its response, no documents have been
found within the NYPD and no paperwork pertaining to a trip to Japan was found in Gonzalez’s
personnel file. (Defs.’ Opp. at 5). Defendants state that they have asked the NYPD to conduct a
further search and will produce any responsive documents found. (Id.)
Defendants are Ordered to confirm by January 23, 2026, that such a search has been
conducted and that all documents have been produced or that no such documents could be found.
By the same date, defendants are also Ordered to confirm that defendant Gonzalez has searched
his records and provided any responsive materials.
Case 1:23-cv-08341-NRM-CLP Document 72 Filed 12/29/25 Page 15 of 17 PageID #:
<pageID>

16
J. 	Affirmations
Plaintiff seeks a declaration from defendants relating to the documents that defendants’
counsel claims do not exist, describing the search conducted. (Pl.’s Mot. at 6). As for those
documents that do not exist, plaintiff contends that defendants should be required to provide a
sworn certification to that effect. (Id.)
As set forth above, defendants are Ordered to confirm by way of a Declaration, no later
than January 23, 2026, that they have conducted a search for responsive documents Ordered by
the Court to be produced, and have either produced them or been unable to find any responsive
documents.
K. Depositions
Plaintiff asked that depositions of witnesses be left open in the event that additional
documents are produced. (Id.) In a letter filed with the Court on October 3, 2025, plaintiff noted
that the parties agreed to reschedule depositions to dates in November and December 2025, due
to a change in defense counsel, and that plaintiff was awaiting deposition dates for two of the
defendants. (ECF No. 69). The parties are Ordered to provide a Status Report by January 30,
2026, indicating what depositions have been taken, what depositions remain open, and the
proposed schedule for completion of depositions. If plaintiff can show good cause to reopen a
deposition based on the late production of documents as Ordered herein, the Court will allow
further questioning of specific witnesses.
L. 	Death of Defendant Garnar
In his letter of October 3, 2025, plaintiff indicated that defendant Garner has passed away
and that plaintiff is in the process of obtaining the information necessary to file a Suggestion of
Case 1:23-cv-08341-NRM-CLP Document 72 Filed 12/29/25 Page 16 of 17 PageID #:
<pageID>

17
Death and move for substitution under Rule 25. (ECF No. 69). Plaintiff shall provide a status
update on this process in the Status Report due January 30, 2026, see supra.
CONCLUSION
For the reasons set forth above, plaintiff’s Motion is granted in part and denied in part.
By January 23, 2026, defendants shall supplement their responses, make the above-mentioned
Declarations and confirmations to the Court, and produce a privilege log to plaintiff and the
Court regarding any documents for which they claim privilege. The parties shall submit a Status
Report by January 30, 2026, indicating what discovery issues remain outstanding.
The Clerk is directed to send copies of this Order to the parties either electronically
through the Electronic Case Filing (ECF) system or by mail.
SO ORDERED.
Dated: Brooklyn, New York
December 29, 2025
/s/ Cheryl L. Pollak
Cheryl L. Pollak
United States Magistrate Judge
Eastern District of New York
Case 1:23-cv-08341-NRM-CLP Document 72 Filed 12/29/25 Page 17 of 17 PageID #:
<pageID>