Allen v. New York State Department of Corrections and Community Supervision
- Loretta Preska
- 1:19-cv-08173
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 5
In Allen v. New York State Department of Corrections and Community Supervision, Judge Preska limited Dr. Morley’s deposition privilege to policy decisionmaking, not implementation questions.
The ruling governs the plaintiffs’ questioning of Dr. John Morley during his deposition and protects DOCCS deliberations about developing or revising the medications policy, while allowing questions about how the policy was applied.
What happened
In Allen v. New York State Department of Corrections and Community Supervision, the plaintiffs asked the court to decide whether Dr. John Morley could refuse to answer deposition questions under a privilege protecting certain government decisionmaking. The dispute concerned the agency’s policy for medications with abuse potential.
The court said the privilege protects information created before a government decision and involving the process of developing policy. It found that the plaintiffs challenge how the policy was applied to patients, not the process that created or might revise the policy. The court also found that protecting the agency’s policy discussions was important because disclosure could discourage open discussions about possible solutions.
Judge Loretta A. Preska ruled that Dr. Morley may assert the privilege when asked about the development or possible reformulation of the policy, but not when asked how the policy was implemented or why particular inmates were denied medications or exceptions.
The detailed version
- Allen v. New York State Department of Corrections and Community Supervision · No. 1:19-cv-08173
- Loretta Preska
- Oct. 6, 2020
Background
The plaintiffs requested a ruling about whether Dr. John Morley could assert the deliberative process privilege during his deposition. Dr. Morley is identified as the Chief Medical Officer of the New York State Department of Corrections and Community Supervision (DOCCS). The issue involved DOCCS Division of Health Services Policy Number 1.24, concerning medications with abuse potential.
The deliberative process privilege protects certain government communications and information connected to policy decisions. The court explained that information generally must be both predecisional, meaning prepared to help an agency decisionmaker reach a decision, and deliberative, meaning related to the process of developing policy.
Analysis
The parties did not dispute that information concerning a possible reformulation of the medications policy was likely predecisional and deliberative. They disagreed about whether the privilege could be used because government deliberations may not be protected when the decisionmaking process itself is a central issue in the case.
The court rejected the plaintiffs’ position that the privilege was entirely unavailable. It found that the plaintiffs’ claims challenge how the policy was applied, including why particular treatments were approved or denied for particular patients. The claims did not allege that the policy was facially unconstitutional or otherwise challenge the process that produced the original policy or possible revisions. Therefore, questions about the policy’s formulation and possible reformulation were not central to the litigation.
The court also balanced the need for the information against the government’s interest in maintaining the privilege. It gave the most weight to the possibility that compelled testimony about DOCCS’s discussions of policy revisions would discourage DOCCS and other agencies from openly considering policy solutions in this and other civil-rights litigation. The court concluded that this balance favored protecting the policy deliberations.
Ruling
Dr. Morley may assert the deliberative process privilege for questions about the decisionmaking behind the initial formulation of the medications policy and any proposed reformulations. The privilege does not apply to questions about how the policy was implemented, why particular inmates did not receive certain medications, or why an exception was denied.
The order does not decide the plaintiffs’ underlying claims. It addresses the permissible scope of questioning during Dr. Morley’s deposition. If disputes requiring court intervention arise during the deposition, the parties may contact the court to arrange a telephone conference.
Read the full 5-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.