Uniformed Fire Officers Association v. DeBlasio
- Katherine Failla
- 1:20-cv-05441
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
In Uniformed Fire Officers Association v. DeBlasio, Judge Failla ordered plaintiffs to respond to defendants’ discovery letter by July 31.
The plaintiffs and defendants in the case, including the City agencies whose records are discussed in the discovery requests.
What happened
Uniformed Fire Officers Association v. DeBlasio concerns defendants’ request to change earlier discovery orders involving two document requests about public-records requests and disciplinary records.
Defendants argued that producing the requested records would place an excessive and disproportionate burden on the New York City Police Department, Fire Department, and other City agencies. They asked the court to reconsider the earlier order concerning Document Request No. 5 and deny Document Request No. 6 entirely.
Judge Katherine Polk Failla did not decide those requests in this order. Instead, she ordered the plaintiffs to respond to defendants’ letter by July 31, 2020.
The detailed version
- Uniformed Fire Officers Association v. DeBlasio · No. 1:20-cv-05441
- Katherine Failla
- July 31, 2020
Background
Defendants sent the court a letter asking it to reconsider an earlier discovery order. The letter concerned Document Request No. 5 and Document Request No. 6.
Document Request No. 5 sought records and communications concerning denials of public-records requests for disciplinary records, when the denials relied on grounds other than New York Civil Rights Law § 50-a. Defendants asked the court not to require the New York City Police Department and Fire Department to respond to this request. They argued that the agencies would need to review approximately 20,000 requests at the Police Department and approximately 8,000 requests at the Fire Department, even though their systems did not categorize requests and denials in the ways needed to identify responsive documents.
Document Request No. 6 sought records and communications about the release or denial of public-records requests involving unsubstantiated or non-final allegations against City employees other than law-enforcement officers. Defendants asked the court to deny this request in its entirety. They argued that more than 30 City agencies would have to review thousands of requests and estimated that the effort would take more than 1,000 employee hours.
Parties’ Positions
Defendants argued that both requests were too burdensome and disproportionate to the plaintiffs’ needs, including their need for discovery concerning a preliminary-injunction motion. Defendants stated that they were prepared to produce records responsive to Document Request No. 5 within the limits previously set by the court for the Civilian Complaint Review Board and Department of Correction, but they sought reconsideration as to the Police Department and Fire Department. The opinion does not include the plaintiffs’ response to defendants’ letter.
Court’s Action
Judge Katherine Polk Failla ordered the plaintiffs to respond to defendants’ letter by July 31, 2020. The order does not state that the court granted or denied defendants’ reconsideration requests, and it does not resolve Document Request No. 5 or Document Request No. 6.
Classification Basis
This is a procedural order because it addresses discovery and sets a deadline for a response without deciding the underlying dispute or ruling on the requested discovery changes.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.