State of New York v. United States Department of Homeland Security
- George Daniels
- 1:19-cv-07777
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In State of New York v. Department of Homeland Security, Magistrate Judge Wang granted discovery beyond the administrative record on plaintiffs’ equal-protection claims.
The plaintiffs in the two listed actions may obtain discovery on their equal-protection claims; the defendants must participate in the discovery process and submit the required Rule 26(f) report.
What happened
In State of New York v. Department of Homeland Security, the plaintiffs asked to obtain evidence outside the government’s existing administrative record for their equal-protection claims. The opinion addresses two related actions listed in the order.
The court said the defendants had not adequately explained why discovery should be denied. It agreed that evidence of possible racial motivation could exist outside the administrative record, especially because an agency’s explanation might not reveal discriminatory intent. The court also noted that the equal-protection claims had survived dismissal.
The court granted the plaintiffs’ request for discovery on those claims. The parties were ordered to submit a report about their conference and discovery plans by October 15, 2020. Magistrate Judge Ona T. Wang signed the order.
The detailed version
- State of New York v. United States Department of Homeland Security · No. 1:19-cv-07777
- George Daniels
- Sept. 30, 2020
Background
The order concerns two related actions: State of New York v. United States Department of Homeland Security, No. 19-CV-7777, and Make the Road New York v. Ken Cuccinelli, No. 19-CV-7993. The plaintiffs requested discovery on their equal-protection claims. Discovery is the process of obtaining information and documents from opposing parties. The plaintiffs also reserved the right to seek discovery on claims under the Administrative Procedure Act, but this order ruled on discovery for the equal-protection claims.
Court’s reasoning
The court found that the defendants had not adequately explained why the court should depart from decisions in other federal courts allowing discovery on the same issue. The court relied particularly on reasoning that evidence of racial animus—racially discriminatory motivation—might be outside the administrative record, meaning the record the agency created to explain its action. Limiting discovery to that record could prevent the court from examining whether government decisionmakers acted with discriminatory purpose.
The court also noted that the plaintiffs’ equal-protection claims had survived dismissal. It stated that, even if a requirement of making a strong showing of bad faith or improper conduct applied, the plaintiffs’ allegations were sufficient to meet that standard. The opinion did not decide whether the plaintiffs ultimately proved an equal-protection violation.
Ruling
The court granted the plaintiffs’ request for discovery on their equal-protection claims. It ordered the parties to submit their report under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(f) on October 15, 2020. Ona T. Wang, United States Magistrate Judge, signed the order on September 30, 2020.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.