Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Nov. 22, 2019

State Of New York v. United States Department of the Treasury

Judge
Jesse Furman
Docket
1:19-cv-04024
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
2
Civil ProcedureDiscovery
In one sentence

In State of New York v. Treasury, Judge Furman ordered discussions and a conference about document production but made no final ruling.

Who this affects

The State of New York, the State of New Jersey, the United States Department of the Treasury, and the Internal Revenue Service were required to meet, confer, file a status letter, and attend the Court’s conference concerning document production.

What happened

In State of New York and New Jersey v. the United States Department of the Treasury and the Internal Revenue Service, the plaintiffs and defendants disagreed about how quickly the defendants should review and produce documents.

Judge Furman said he was inclined to adopt a production schedule between the plaintiffs’ proposed 90-day deadline and the defendants’ proposal to take no action. He was also inclined to require a rolling list describing withheld documents and to reject, for now, the plaintiffs’ challenge to the defendants’ claims of legal protection for some materials.

Judge Jesse M. Furman ordered the parties to meet in person, discuss ways to speed production, file a status letter, and appear at a December 11, 2019 conference. The order did not set a final production schedule or make a final ruling on the privilege challenge.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
State Of New York v. United States Department of the Treasury · No. 1:19-cv-04024
Judge
Jesse Furman
Date
Nov. 22, 2019

Background

New York and New Jersey sought documents from the United States Department of the Treasury and the Internal Revenue Service. The parties submitted competing proposals about the timing of the defendants’ review and production: the plaintiffs proposed a 90-day deadline, while the defendants proposed that the Court take no action.

The Court’s stated inclinations

After reviewing the parties’ motion papers and relevant case law, the Court said it was inclined to set a production schedule between those proposals. The Court was also inclined to require the defendants to provide a Vaughn Index on a rolling basis. A Vaughn Index is a document-by-document description of materials withheld from production and the reasons asserted for withholding them. The Court further said it was inclined to deny the plaintiffs’ challenge to the defendants’ invocation of applicable privileges as premature, meaning the Court viewed that challenge as not yet ready for decision.

Required next steps and disposition

The Court ordered the parties to meet in person for at least one hour by December 3, 2019, to discuss a possible production schedule and ways to expedite review and production. The listed possibilities included narrowing the requests, agreeing to postpone or forgo review of categories of documents likely to be exempt, and identifying information the plaintiffs most wanted reviewed quickly. The parties also had to file a letter by December 5, 2019, reporting their positions and the status of production as of that date. They were ordered to appear for a conference before Judge Jesse M. Furman on December 11, 2019. The order did not itself establish the final production schedule or issue a final ruling on the privilege challenge.

The authoritative version

Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.