Rodriguez v. City Of New York
- P. Castel
- 1:21-cv-10815
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Shellyne Rodriguez v. City of New York, Judge Figueredo granted removal of confidentiality designations but denied attorney’s fees.
Shellyne Rodriguez and the City of New York; the ruling also concerned text messages involving NYPD Captain Delgado.
What happened
In Shellyne Rodriguez v. City of New York, the plaintiff asked to remove the City’s confidentiality designations from text messages sent to and from NYPD Captain Delgado. The messages concerned police planning before the June 4 protest at Mott Haven in 2020, which was central to the plaintiff’s claims.
The plaintiff argued that the messages were publicly available through a New York Freedom of Information Law request and related to the incidents in the case. The City argued that the messages were irrelevant and that disclosure could embarrass or harass Captain Delgado. The City did not argue that the messages failed the protective order’s other limits on confidentiality.
Judge Valerie Figueredo granted the request to remove the confidentiality designations and directed the plaintiff to file the letter motion on the docket. The judge denied the plaintiff’s request for attorney’s fees because the City’s position was substantially justified, and directed the Clerk to terminate the related letter motion.
The detailed version
- Rodriguez v. City Of New York · No. 1:21-cv-10815
- P. Castel
- Aug. 22, 2024
Background
The plaintiff submitted a letter asking for permission to file under seal a motion seeking to remove confidentiality designations from certain materials. The materials were text messages sent to and from NYPD Captain Delgado, who was in charge at various stages of the 2020 protest at Mott Haven and was also in charge of the Strategic Response Group at the protest.
The case’s protective order required a party to seek the Court’s permission before filing a document under seal. It also provided that material could not be designated confidential if it related to the incidents underlying the complaint or could be obtained through the New York Freedom of Information Law, known as FOIL.
Arguments
The plaintiff argued that the text messages were publicly available through a FOIL request and related to the core facts of the case because they concerned NYPD officers’ planning before the June 4 protest, where the plaintiff was arrested. The City did not dispute those points. Instead, it argued that the messages were irrelevant and that disclosure could cause embarrassment or harassment to Captain Delgado.
Ruling
The Court granted the plaintiff’s request to remove the confidentiality designations. Although Captain Delgado was not a named defendant, the plaintiff had asserted a claim against the City under the municipal-liability rule commonly called a Monell claim. The Court found the messages relevant because Captain Delgado was a high-ranking NYPD officer who was in charge of the protest at various times and because the protest was central to the plaintiff’s claims.
The Court also held that the City’s general statement about possible harm was not enough to show that disclosure could cause particularly serious embarrassment or other serious harm. The Court directed the plaintiff to file the letter motion on the docket and directed the Clerk to terminate the letter motion at ECF No. 98. The Court denied the plaintiff’s request for attorney’s fees under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37 because the City’s position was substantially justified.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.