Kukaj v. Town of Eastchester
- Philip Halpern
- 7:24-cv-08942
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 5
In Kukaj v. Town of Eastchester, Judge Halpern granted a protective order limiting disclosure of witness-related video, a 911 call, and statements.
The order affects the plaintiff’s access and use of ten body-camera videos, the complaining witness’s 911 call, and her statements. It protects the privacy and safety interests of the non-party complaining witness and governs disclosure of the materials in the litigation.
What happened
In Kukaj v. Town of Eastchester, et al., the plaintiff, who is representing himself, requested body-camera videos, a 911 call, and statements from a non-party complaining witness concerning a January 26, 2023 incident.
The defendant asked the court to require confidentiality for ten body-camera videos showing the witness, along with her 911 call and two statements. The court found that the witness’s privacy and safety concerns justified limiting disclosure beyond this lawsuit. The court noted that the other eight videos, which did not show the witness, had already been provided to the plaintiff.
Judge Philip M. Halpern granted the defendant’s application for a protective order and directed that the covered materials be governed by a separate confidentiality agreement and protective order. The clerk was asked to terminate the motion filed as Document 56 and send the order to the plaintiff.
The detailed version
- Kukaj v. Town of Eastchester · No. 7:24-cv-08942
- Philip Halpern
- July 16, 2026
Background
The plaintiff is proceeding without a lawyer. The opinion states that, after an earlier ruling dismissed all claims against all defendants except claims against Defendant Krause, the remaining claims against Krause were for unlawful search and seizure, violation of the First Amendment right to record and retaliation, and false arrest.
The plaintiff sought body-worn-camera footage from officers present during the January 26, 2023 incident, as well as a 911 recording and statements by the non-party complaining witness. Eighteen body-camera videos existed. Eight videos had already been produced because they did not show the complaining witness. The motion concerned ten videos that included the witness’s face, statements, or other identifying information. The witness also made one 911 call and two statements.
The defendant asked the court to require that the witness-related materials be handled under a proposed confidentiality agreement and protective order. The parties did not reach agreement after several attempts to discuss the issue.
Legal Standard
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c) allows a court to issue a protective order for good cause to protect a person from annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or undue burden or expense. The party seeking the order must show a clearly defined, specific, and serious injury that could result from disclosure; general or conclusory concerns are not enough.
Court’s Ruling
The court found that the defendant showed good cause. The materials identified the complaining witness and disclosed her appearance, statements to officers, and other identifying information. The court concluded that disclosure could expose her to harassment, intimidation, or retaliation, and that her privacy and safety interests outweighed the need for unrestricted disclosure outside the litigation.
The court also noted that the defendant sought a limited order rather than applying confidentiality restrictions to all body-camera footage. The court granted the application for a protective order, and the confidentiality agreement and protective order were to be docketed separately. The court stated that the agreement allows disclosure of confidential material to witnesses in certain circumstances, addressing the plaintiff’s concern that other witnesses might need to view the footage. The clerk was directed to terminate the letter-motion at Document 56 and mail a copy of the order to the plaintiff.
Read the full 5-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.