Grottano v. City Of New York

Background

Following a February 6, 2020 conference, the court reviewed letters from plaintiffs’ counsel and the City of New York proposing redactions to the City’s February 5 letter. The February 5 letter had been filed under seal in connection with developments concerning a class-action settlement.

The settlement agreement, entered on June 20, 2019, provided for payments of up to $4,000 to people who visited or attempted to visit an inmate at a New York City Department of Correction facility between November 23, 2012, and October 30, 2019, and were subjected to an invasive search, unless the visitor was arrested for possessing contraband. The City agreed to contribute $12.5 million. The parties expected approximately 3,000 eligible class members and agreed that awards could be reduced proportionally if necessary to compensate all eligible class members.

The court had preliminarily approved the settlement based largely on the parties’ earlier submissions and representations. On January 22, 2020, plaintiffs’ counsel reported that more than 10,000 claimants had already sought inclusion in the class, with three months remaining in the claims period. Counsel estimated that the payment would be less than $1,000 per claimant based on the number of claims at that time.

Redaction Dispute

The parties disagreed about which portions of the February 5 letter contained confidential information that could be redacted before public filing. The court considered the issue under concerns involving mediation confidentiality. It explained that some authorities cited by the plaintiffs involved third parties seeking mediation communications or confidentiality rules for the Southern District of New York’s Mediation Program, which did not apply to the parties’ private mediations.

The court also observed that neither side identified prejudice from publicly filing either proposed redacted version. It noted that much of the information had already been disclosed publicly, including in a March 15, 2019 Memorandum of Understanding attached to the City’s letter, which mirrored the settlement terms.

Ruling

The court concluded that the City’s proposed redactions more closely matched meaningful confidentiality concerns without unduly restricting the public’s right to know or transparency in the proceedings. It found that the plaintiffs’ proposed redactions were too broad and ordered that the City’s redacted version of the February 5 letter be filed on the public docket.

The court did not decide whether the June 20, 2019 Settlement Agreement should be enforced. It stated that neither party was barred from arguing for or against enforcement of that agreement.