Kravitz v. State of New York

Background

Jay S. Kravitz sued defendants over alleged violations of his First Amendment rights after he was allegedly prevented from participating in a Jewish Shavuot service while incarcerated. The order addressed Kravitz’s discovery motion concerning two matters: an adverse inference based on defendants’ alleged failure to disclose his complete grievance file, and permission for Kravitz to personally review floor plans for Downstate Correctional Facility, where he had previously been incarcerated.

Kravitz withdrew the adverse-inference request after defendants stated that the four pages previously produced were the entire grievance file concerning the 2014 incident and submitted an affidavit from a knowledgeable witness supporting that statement. The remaining dispute concerned the floor plans, which had been produced to Kravitz’s attorneys as confidential material restricted to attorneys’ eyes only. Kravitz argued that reviewing them with counsel would refresh his memory about the route he took on the date of the alleged incident.

The Parties’ Arguments

Defendants argued that the floor plans were protected by the federal law-enforcement privilege and that even limited review by Kravitz could threaten institutional safety and security because the former facility’s layout allegedly resembled layouts of facilities still operating.

The court explained that the law-enforcement privilege is a qualified privilege that can protect information concerning investigations, law-enforcement methods, sources, witnesses, personnel, and related privacy or investigative concerns. The party asserting the privilege must show that it applies to the documents and identify a specific investigation, technique, or risk that could be harmed by disclosure.

Court’s Analysis

The court found that defendants offered only generalized assertions of harm. They did not identify a specific security threat, investigative technique, or institutional vulnerability that would be compromised by Kravitz’s limited review with counsel. The court declined to conclude that the privilege automatically protects all correctional-facility floor plans in every circumstance.

The court also distinguished cases cited by defendants because those cases involved plaintiffs who were representing themselves and remained incarcerated at the facilities whose floor plans they sought. Here, Kravitz was represented by counsel, was no longer incarcerated at Downstate Correctional Facility, and the facility had been out of operation since 2022. The proposed review was also narrowly limited: Kravitz would view the plans only with counsel, would not retain copies, and would use them only to identify the routes he took to and from the religious celebration.

Ruling

The court ordered that the floor plans remain confidential and subject to the attorneys’-eyes-only designation, but allowed Kravitz’s counsel to review them with him. The review must occur in person, not remotely. Kravitz may not retain copies or take notes about the plans, except for notes he provides to his counsel. He must separately agree to be bound by the protective order and may not discuss or convey information about the plans to anyone other than his counsel.

The portion of Kravitz’s motion seeking an adverse inference was DENIED as moot. The portion seeking to compel defendants to allow him to personally review the Downstate Correctional Facility floor plans was GRANTED with the stated limitations. The order therefore states that the motion was GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. The parties were also directed to submit a joint status letter within 21 days confirming whether discovery was complete. Judge Victoria Reznik did not decide the merits of Kravitz’s underlying First Amendment claim in this discovery order.