In artist case, Court Limits Right to Depose Government Officials

7/29/2019 In artist case, Court Limits Right to Depose Government Officials

1/3

Appeals Court Limits Artists Rights and Issues New PrecedentSeverely Limiting Every Americans Right to Depose GovernmentOfficials

Today, 9/25/13, the 2nd circuit Federal Appeals Court issued a

significant ruling which does serious damage to every U.S.citizens civil and due process rights. The ruling was issued inLederman et al v Parks Department and can be read in itsentirety here:http://www.scribd.com/doc/170930046/Decision-and-Order-WEB

After ruling in favor of Mayor Michael Bloomberg and the ParksDepartments rules severely limiting the freedom of FirstAmendment protected street artists (rules which directlycontradicted the 2nd circuits own previous rulings in favor of

street artists rights) the court went further and issued what theydescribed as, a precedential decision severely limiting the rightto depose government officials in civil or criminal court cases.

EXCERPT from pg 9 of the ruling:We have not previously addressed this issue in a precedentialdecision. We now hold that, to depose a high-ranking governmentofficial, a party must demonstrate exceptional circumstances

justifying the deposition -- for example, that the official hasunique first-hand knowledge related to the litigated claims or that

the necessary information cannot be obtained through other, lessburdensome or intrusive means. Bogan v. City ofBoston, 489 F.3d 417, 423 (1st Cir. 2007); In re United States(Holder), 197 F.3d 310, 316 (8th Cir. 1999). High-rankinggovernment officials are generally shielded from depositionsbecause they have "greater duties and time constraints thanother witnesses." In re United States (Kessler), 985 F.2d 510, 512(11th Cir. 1993). If courts did not limit these depositions, suchofficials would spend "an inordinate amount of time tending topending litigation." Bogan, 489 F.3d at 423.

What the ruling does not mention is that the artist plaintiffs hadin fact submitted exceptional evidence in this lawsuitdemonstrating that Mayor Bloomberg had been very personallyand directly involved in eliminating street artists from NYC Parksfor the entire 12 years of his administration. The court literallyignored every single piece of evidence in the case.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/170930046/Decision-and-Order-WEBhttp://www.scribd.com/doc/170930046/Decision-and-Order-WEB


2/3

The evidence (which was over 1,000 pages long) included a taperecording of the Mayor telling ARTIST president Robert Ledermanthat there were too many street artists near his home acrossfrom Central Park and that they sold junk. In the same

recording the Mayor bizarrely told an NYPD officer stationed atthe entrance to City Hall that Lederman was, crazy and wantedto kill him.

In the same recording the Mayor stated that the police wereunwilling to enforce the previously existing vending laws againstartists and that, tax paying businesses, were complaining tohim, despite there not being a single business or store in thelocation the Mayor was referring to near the Met Museum.

The plaintiffs also submitted emails from Mayor Bloomberg toLederman, in one of which the Mayor wrote, all is not forgiven,a reference to Lederman fighting to stop 12 years of the Mayorsefforts to destroy artists rights. Also included in evidence wereemails from Park Commissioner Benepe to Deputy Mayor PatriciaHarris, in which the Commissioner discussed ways to trick anumber of well-known NYC newspaper reporters so as to getthem to write damaging articles about street artists.

Also submitted was a tape of the Mayors WOR radio show, in

which he went on air the day this lawsuit was filed in 2010,claiming that the Citys victory was a sure thing and detailing thehistory of the artist plaintiffs previous successful lawsuits.

ARTIST President Robert Lederman issued the followingstatement:

This ruling is a tragedy for every artist in the United States. Itgives municipalities the right to severely limit where and howartists can express themselves, despite them being

unquestionably First Amendment protected.

The ruling goes much further however, making it virtuallyimpossible to obtain a deposition from any government official.Imagine a lawsuit in which a police official was accused ofordering the officers under him to violate civil rights, falselyarrest or beat up non violent protestors, illegally tap phones or to


3/3

target political opponents of a sitting government official.

If allowed to stand, this ruling would protect police officials,mayors, agency commissioners, governors, senators or even theUS President from ever having to face a sworn deposition. Even

the lowest level government officials would be able to cite thisruling in order to avoid giving a sworn deposition.

We intend to appeal the ruling to the U.S. Supreme Court at theearliest possible date, and feel confident that the many errors inboth the appeals court ruling and the lower court ruling will beoverturned. We call on all interested parties to lend theirexpertise to overturning this ruling, which is an assault on civilrights and due process.

Contact:Robert Lederman, President of ARTIST201 [email protected]

Attorney for the plaintiffs Julie Milner646 733-8658

[email protected]

AP article on the ruling:

http://www.courthousenews.com/2013/09/25/61479.htm
mailto:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]

In artist case, Court Limits Right to Depose Government Officials

Documents

Transcript of In artist case, Court Limits Right to Depose Government Officials