Fitchett v. City of New York
- Paul Engelmayer
- 1:18-cv-08144
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Fitchett v. City of New York, Judge Engelmayer granted defendants’ request to file sensitive deposition testimony under seal.
The defendants, the third parties whose privacy interests were cited, and members of the public seeking access to the identified deposition testimony.
What happened
In Fitchett v. City of New York, the defendants asked permission to file certain deposition testimony under seal while seeking summary judgment. The plaintiff consented to the request.
The defendants said the testimony described the makeup and security measures of two New York City Police Department units involved in protecting the Mayor, City Hall, Gracie Mansion, and other officials. They also said sealing was needed because the information was sensitive to law enforcement and implicated third parties’ privacy.
Judge Paul A. Engelmayer granted the request. The order addressed only sealing the identified material and did not decide the underlying summary-judgment motion.
The detailed version
- Fitchett v. City of New York · No. 1:18-cv-08144
- Paul Engelmayer
- May 4, 2020
Background
The defendants, represented by the New York City Law Department, submitted a letter asking to file certain documents under seal in connection with their motion for summary judgment. The plaintiff consented to the request.
Sealing Request
The defendants sought to seal deposition testimony concerning the composition and protection measures of the Executive Protection Unit and Uniformed Operations Unit. The letter described those units as part of the Municipal Security Section of the New York City Police Department’s Intelligence Bureau. According to the letter, the units help protect the Mayor, City Hall, Gracie Mansion, and other domestic and foreign officials.
The defendants argued that the testimony contained law-enforcement-sensitive information and implicated the personal privacy interests of third parties. They acknowledged the presumption that judicial documents should be publicly accessible but argued that sealing was appropriate to protect substantial interests, including public safety, privacy, and asserted privileges.
Ruling
Judge Paul A. Engelmayer granted the defendants’ request to file the identified document under seal. The order did not rule on the parties’ summary-judgment motion or the merits of the underlying case.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.