Gugino v. City of Buffalo
1:21-cv-00283
W.D.N.Y.May 30, 2024Background
- Plaintiff Martin Gugino brought a civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and New York law after sustaining a fractured skull during a protest outside Buffalo City Hall in June 2020, where police allegedly used excessive force just after curfew.
- Defendants include the City of Buffalo, Mayor Byron Brown, several police officers, and senior police officials, accused of violating Gugino’s constitutional rights.
- Discovery disputes arose involving depositions of then-Deputy, now Commissioner, Joseph Gramaglia; non-party arbitrator Jeffrey Selchick, who oversaw related police disciplinary arbitration; and John Evans, the PBA president.
- Plaintiff sought to continue Gramaglia’s deposition, compel Evans to answer deposition questions without attorney interference, and depose Selchick regarding his arbitration decision; defendants/third parties resisted on grounds of privilege, proper procedure, and high-ranking official protections.
- The court addressed motions for protective orders, motions to compel depositions, motions to quash subpoenas, and sanctions related to deposition conduct and discovery.
- The court resolved the discovery disputes on May 30, 2024, denying the City’s protective motions in part, granting only limited further deposition of Gramaglia, quashing Selchick’s deposition subpoena, and granting Plaintiff’s motion to compel Evans to complete his deposition without improper attorney assistance.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Further Deposition of Gramaglia (high-ranking official) | Gramaglia has unique, first-hand knowledge and already appeared twice; should answer yes/no to adverse, leading questions; position moot | Gramaglia is a high-ranking official, entitled to protection from repetitive depositions; Weisbeck’s refusal to finish depositions violates rules | No good cause for protective order; Plaintiff entitled to finish 57 minutes more, limited to questions that can be answered yes/no |
| Sufficiency of Gramaglia’s Answers | Gramaglia was evasive and narrative; Plaintiff needs yes/no answers; asks for court-compelled responses | Gramaglia answered all questions; narrative form often necessary due to complexity; objections preserved | Questions sometimes call for narrative; only yes/no questions permitted in remaining deposition; questions must be properly framed |
| Deposition and Document Subpoena for Arbitrator Selchick | Arbitrator privilege should not apply; seeks info on bias/authority for disciplinary actions | Selchick’s thought processes/conduct privileged and confidential; ethical rules prevent disclosure | Motion to quash granted; privilege applies; Plaintiff lacks standing as non-party to arbitration |
| Attorney Coaching During Evans Deposition | Passing notes to witness is improper influence; violates rules & guidelines | Notes only clarified Evans’s capacity; confusion could have been avoided with topic notice | Passing notes is improper; violates guidelines; deposition to resume without coaching; show cause issued for sanctions |
Key Cases Cited
- Lederman v. New York City Dep't of Parks & Recreation, 731 F.3d 199 (2d Cir. 2013) (high-ranking government officials generally protected from depositions except in exceptional circumstances)
- Bogan v. City of Boston, 489 F.3d 417 (1st Cir. 2007) (exceptional circumstances needed to depose high-ranking officials)
- Pierce v. Underwood, 487 U.S. 552 (1988) (defines “substantially justified” standard in discovery disputes)
- Katir v. Columbia Univ., 15 F.3d 23 (2d Cir. 1994) (non-party to arbitration lacks standing to challenge proceedings)
- Murray v. County of Suffolk, 212 F.R.D. 108 (E.D.N.Y. 2002) (deposition standard for high-ranking officials)
- In re United States (Kessler), 985 F.2d 510 (11th Cir. 1993) (justification required to depose high-ranking officials)