Jallow v. Geffner
- Lorna Schofield
- 1:23-cv-03969
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Jallow v. Terrell, Magistrate Judge Parker unsealed potentially protected video for limited use in the civil case.
The plaintiff and defendants may use the unsealed footage only to prosecute or defend the claims in this civil suit. Nonparties shown in the footage, including possible inmates, may be affected because their potentially protected records or incarceration may appear in the video.
What happened
In Jallow v. Terrell, the defendants planned to produce video surveillance from the Male Holding Cell Area of Manhattan Central Booking recorded on April 27, 2022. The court said the footage was relevant to the pending civil action and might show nonparties whose records were protected under New York law.
The court ordered that the footage potentially sealed under New York Criminal Procedure Law §§ 160.50 or 160.55 be unsealed and made available for use. The order did not decide the parties’ underlying claims.
Magistrate Judge Katharine H. Parker ordered that any unsealed footage remain confidential and be used only to prosecute or defend the claims in this civil suit.
The detailed version
- Jallow v. Geffner · No. 1:23-cv-03969
- Lorna Schofield
- Jan. 11, 2025
Background
The defendants intended to produce video surveillance footage from the Male Holding Cell Area of Manhattan Central Booking, recorded on April 27, 2022. The court stated that the footage might show nonparties, including inmates whose arrest records and later incarceration could be sealed under New York Criminal Procedure Law §§ 160.50 and 160.55. The court also found that the footage was material and relevant to the pending civil action.
Ruling
The court exercised its authority to order the footage unsealed for use in the case. It ordered that video surveillance footage from the specified location and date that might be sealed under New York Criminal Procedure Law §§ 160.50 or 160.55 was unsealed and could be made available for use.
The court further ordered that any footage unsealed under the order would be treated as confidential and used only to prosecute or defend the plaintiff’s claims in this civil suit. The order addressed access to evidence and did not resolve the underlying claims.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.