In D’Angelo v. City of New York, No. 150011/2018, 2026 WL 147757 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. Jan. 13, 2026), an employment discrimination case, the court ruled on a discovery dispute between the parties.
In sum, the plaintiff “alleges that during the 13 years she worked at the FDNY she was subjected to harassment, intimidation, threats, physical assault, and vandalism and destruction of her workstation and equipment, and that City Defendants did nothing to address the issues in violation of its Workplace Violence Prevention Policy.”
At issue were the following documents sought by plaintiff:
1) The EMS Operating Guide Procedure 113-08;
2) The Unusual Occurrence Operating Guide containing changes and amendments since 2016;
3) Minutes from the meetings of the Work Place Violence Committee, including those involving employees assigned to EMS Stations 22 and 23, for the period commencing January 1, 2025, through December 31, 2017, which include certain recommendations regarding counseling, mediation, referrals to the Bureau of Investigations and Trials or the EEO Office of FDNY, as well as the race and gender of any perpetrator; and
4) A spreadsheet containing the reported workplace violence incidents for the period commencing January 1, 2015, through December 31, 2017.
The parties argued as follows:
Plaintiff argues that the documents are necessary to properly prosecute plaintiff’s claims that City Defendants did not follow proper procedures under the WVPP and treated plaintiff’s claims of workplace violence differently than those of other employees outside of her protected class. Additionally, plaintiff seeks this information to see how the perpetrators of such violence were treated, not just the complainants and noted in the reply that any information would be **3 protected pursuant to the Confidentiality Order previously issued to protect the information City Defendants would provide.
City Defendants object to the motion on the grounds that it is overly broad and burdensome, and that plaintiff is not entitled to the documents she is seeking as her particular case was not addressed because plaintiff retired, among other reasons.
At the time of the decision, the following discovery remained outstanding: the unredacted Workplace Violence Committee Meeting minutes, the spreadsheet of reported workplace violence incidences, and any amendments of the Unusual Occurrence Operating Guide and the Operation Gide Procedure 113-08 made from 2016 to present.
The court ruled on this discovery as follows:
CPLR 3101(a) provides that “[t]here shall be full disclosure of all matter material and necessary in the prosecution or defense of an action, regardless of the burden of proof…”. “The words, “material and necessary”, are, in our view, to be interpreted liberally to require disclosure, upon request, of any facts bearing on the controversy which will assist preparation for trial by sharpening the issues and reducing delay and prolixity. The test is one of usefulness and reason” (Allen v Crowell-Collier Publishing Co., 21 NY2d 403, 406, 235 NE2d 430, 432, 288 NYS2d 449, 452 [1968]; see **4 Forman v Henkin, 30 NY3d 656, 661, 93 NE3d 882, 887, 70 NYS3d 157, 162 [2018]). “…[W]e emphasize that discovery determinations are discretionary; each request must be evaluated on a case-by-case basis with due regard for the strong policy supporting open disclosure” (Andon v 302-304 Mott St. Assocs., 94 NY2d 740, 747, 731 NE2d 589, 594, 709 NYS2d 873, 878 [2000]). “Under our discovery statutes and case law, competing interests must always be balanced; the need for discovery must be weighed against any special burden to be borne by the opposing party” (O’Neill v Oakgrove Constr., Inc., 71 NY2d 521, 529, 523 NE2d 277, 281, 528 NYS2d 1, 5 [1988]; see Kavanagh v Ogden Allied Maint. Corp., 92 NY2d 952, 705 NE2d 1197, 683 NYS2d 156 [1998]).
The party seeking the information must show that the request is intended to yield information that is material and necessary to the prosecution of the case (see Forman, 30 NY3d at 661; Gruber v Glam, Inc., NY Misc LEXIS 60096 [Sup Ct, NY County 2021]; State Artist Mgmt., LLC v Alquist, NY Misc LEXIS 9933 [Sup Ct, NY County 2025]. “New York discovery rules do not condition a party’s receipt of disclosure on a showing that the items the party seeks actually exist; rather, the request need only be appropriately tailored and reasonably calculated to yield relevant information. Indeed, as the name suggests, the purpose of discovery is to determine if material relevant to a claim or defense exists. In many if not most instances, a party seeking disclosure will not be able to demonstrate that items it has not yet obtained contain material evidence” (Forman, 30 NY3d at 664). “A showing of disparate treatment — that is, a showing that an employer treated plaintiff ‘less favorably than a similarly situated employee outside his protected group’ — is a recognized method of raising an inference of discrimination for the purposes of making out a prima facie case.” Mandell v. County of Suffolk, 316 F.3d 368, 379 (2d Cir. 2003)” (Ruiz v County of Rockland, 609 F3d 486, 493 [2d Cir 2010]). Furthermore, discovery is different from admissibility at trial. As such “admissibility at trial is not dispositive on a **5 discovery motion [internal citation omitted]” (Gerardo v Breton, 212 AD3d 461, 462, 179 NYS3d 896 [1st Dept 2023]).
Applying these principles, the court held that plaintiff was entitled to unredacted documents.