The opinion
DOCUMENT
ELECTRONICALLY FILED
DOCH
DATE FILED:_3/26/2024
THE City oF NEW YORK
SYLVIA O. HINDS-RADIX Defendants’ letter motion for leave to file a cross-motion to stay and lim
Counsel the scope of discovery is granted. That cross-motion may be included wi
Defendants’ opposition to Plaintiff's motion to compel. Defendants shall
a copy of their cross-motion papers to Plaintiff. Plaintiff's deadline to file
opposition to Defendants’ cross-motion is Monday, April 22, 2024.
Defendants’ reply is due on Monday, May 6, 2024.
BY ECF The Clerk of the Court is respectfully directed to mail a copy of this Ord
Hon. Katherine H. Parker Plaintiff.
United States Magistrate Judg
United States District Court SO ORDERED:
Southern District of New York Hj - + ZZ Dn
500 Pearl Street SANET aS
New York, NY 10007-1312 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 3/26/2024
Re: = Carman Williams v. NYC Board of Elections, et al.
23-CV-5460 (AS)
Your Honor:
I am an Assistant Corporation Counsel in the Office of the Hon. Sylvia O. Hinds-Radix,
Corporation Counsel of the City of New York, and the attorney for Defendants NYC Board of
Elections (“BOE”), Hemalee Patel, Donna Ellaby, and Carol Winer (collectively, “Defendants’’)
in the above-referenced matter. On March 12, 2024, after holding a hearing on Plaintiff's Motion
to Compel Discovery (Dkt. 53), this Honorable Court ordered Defendants to file a formal
opposition to Plaintiffs motion.
Defendants respectfully write pursuant to the Court’s individual practices to request leave
to file a cross motion to stay and limit the scope of discovery in the above-referenced case. A
“district court may stay discovery during the pendency of a dispositive motion for ‘good cause’
shown.” Weir v. City of New York, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 71249, at *5 (E.D.N.Y. April 8, 2021).
Defendants filed a Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings on November 9, 2023 and believe that
Plaintiff's Complaint fails to show sufficient support for her claims. Further, Plaintiffs requests
to review documents pertaining to other poll workers is disproportionate to the needs of the case
because it is far outside the of the information the parties need to support their claims and defenses.
Indeed, Plaintiff's Complaint alleges only retaliation and not discrimination. Therefore, similarly-
situated comparators are of no consequence because they cannot be used to prove retaliation. The
request to produce documents related to other Board of Elections poll workers and personnel also
creates an undue burden for the Board of Elections as it will require the agency to seek numerous
documents and records maintained for polling sites across all five boroughs and to review and
redact them, all while the agency prepares for a busy election cycle.
Defendants have already provided Plaintiff all documents pertaining to her performance
and the suspension of her early voting privileges. This includes Plaintiff’s poll worker record, all
emails to and about her related to performance and assignments, all site coordinator journals that
include information on her performance and assignments, and the Board’s manual for Site
Coordinators. Nevertheless, Plaintiff continues to mine for information on other poll workers when
no comparison between others and herself is necessary to prevail in retaliation claims. A
successful retaliation claim requires a showing that a plaintiff engaged in protected activity and
experienced an adverse employment action because of that protected activity. Thus, the Board’s
interaction with other poll workers who are not similarly-situated to Plaintiff because they did not
work under the same supervisor will not be probative in this matter and may supply Plaintiff with
business records containing personal identifying information. To the extent Plaintiff seeks notes
on those poll workers who served with her on the same dates and at the same poll sites, that
information has already been provided by way of the relevant site coordinator journals sent with
initial disclosure.
Defendants further respectfully request to include this cross motion with its Memorandum
of Law in Opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel, due March 26, 2024. Plaintiff has already
undermined efforts by the Court to hold an in-person hearing on the matter of discover, which has
led to the need for Defendants to file formal opposition papers in this matter. Plaintiff failed to
appear for the pre-trial conference schedule for January 23, 2024. Then, during our March 12,
2024 conference, Plaintiff repeatedly interrupted the undersigned and the Court during the
discovery inquiry, thereby inhibiting all discussion regarding the parties’ discovery disputes.
Defendants believe that including their cross motion in their Opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion to
Compel will allow for Defendants to better articulate their needs and for the Court to address all
discovery questions at once so that the parties may avoid any further delays in reaching a resolution
in this action.
Defendants thank the Court for its continued attention and consideration to this matter.
Respectfully submitted,
/s/__________________________
Rodalton J. Poole
Assistant Corporation Counsel
cc: U.S. Mail
Carman Williams
344 E. 28th Street, #8G
New York, NY 10016