Arbelaez v. City of New York

Background

This opinion concerns a federal civil-rights case brought under Section 1983. In an earlier opinion, the court ruled that the plaintiffs were not entitled to discover the identity of an unidentified confidential informant, referred to as the “CI.” The court nevertheless allowed the plaintiffs to depose the CI, provided that the deposition took place under limitations and precautions protecting the CI’s identity from disclosure.

On November 14, 2019, the defendants moved for reconsideration of the part of the earlier order allowing the deposition. They submitted a new declaration from William Viscardi, a New York Police Department inspector. The defendants also asked for permission to file the declaration under seal in its entirety.

Ruling on Reconsideration

The court denied the defendants’ motions. It first found that the reconsideration motion was procedurally improper because it was supported by a letter brief even though the applicable local rule does not permit that format, and because the defendants had submitted a new declaration without obtaining the court’s permission to do so.

The court also held that the motion failed under the strict standard for reconsideration. Reconsideration is not a way to relitigate old issues, present new theories, or obtain another opportunity to argue the merits. The court characterized the motion as an attempt to get a second chance based on a more detailed declaration than the earlier declaration, which the court had found insufficient.

The court further explained that, even if it considered the new declaration, the result would not change. The court accepted that revealing a confidential informant’s identity could place the informant in grave danger and that confidential informants’ identities require protection. But the earlier ruling had already upheld the defendants’ use of the informer’s privilege to prevent disclosure of the CI’s identity. It had allowed a deposition only with appropriate safeguards. The new declaration and the defendants’ arguments did not show that safeguards protecting the CI’s identity were impossible or inadequate.

Sealing Request

The court denied the request to seal the declaration in its entirety. It explained that judicial documents carry a strong presumption of public access. Sealing requires specific findings that it is necessary to protect more important interests, and any sealing must be narrowly tailored.

The court found that complete sealing would not meet that standard because much of the declaration described, in general terms, the dangers confidential informants face when their identities are disclosed. The denial of full sealing was without prejudice to a new application, following the court’s procedures, to file the declaration with narrowly tailored redactions. The defendants had three business days to make that application. If they did not, they were required to file the unredacted declaration on the court’s electronic docket.

Further Order and Disposition

The court noted that the parties had not submitted an agreed protective order or competing proposals by the deadline set in the earlier order. The court explained that filing a reconsideration motion did not pause or suspend the earlier order. The parties were therefore ordered to comply with the prior order no later than November 21, 2019, or sanctions could be imposed. The clerk was directed to terminate docket entry 171. The court’s final disposition was that the defendants’ motions were denied.