Pettiford v. The City of Yonkers
- Judith McCarthy
- 7:14-cv-06271
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Pettiford v. The City of Yonkers, Judge McCarthy ordered defendants to respond to a discovery request by November 20, 2020.
Pettiford and the defendants, who were directed to respond to the request for investigative and sealed records.
What happened
In Pettiford v. The City of Yonkers, Brian D. Pettiford’s lawyers told the court that defendants had provided a related criminal-court docket number and said the case was sealed.
Pettiford’s lawyers said they had identified the person arrested in a 2012 Yonkers Police Department narcotics investigation and obtained that person’s written authorization to release sealed records. They asked the court to order defendants to produce the investigation file and related documents.
Judge Judith C. McCarthy did not decide the production request in this letter. She ordered defendants to respond to the letter by the close of business on November 20, 2020.
The detailed version
- Pettiford v. The City of Yonkers · No. 7:14-cv-06271
- Judith McCarthy
- Nov. 19, 2020
Background
The plaintiff, Brian D. Pettiford, was represented by counsel. His lawyers wrote to the court about YPD Narcotics Investigation Incident No. 12-24965. They said defendants had provided the docket number for a related Yonkers Criminal Court case, No. 12-1558, and represented that the case had been sealed pursuant to a Superior Court Information in Westchester County Supreme Court, SCI No. 12-0520.
Pettiford’s lawyers stated that they had determined the identity of the person arrested in the investigation on March 13, 2012. According to the letter, that person told counsel that the record was sealed because the person was a youthful offender at the time of arrest and gave counsel a signed and notarized authorization for release of all sealed records related to the arrest and conviction.
Request
Pettiford asked the court to order defendants to produce the entire underlying investigation file and all other documents in their possession related to the incident. His lawyers cited New York authority stating that confidential youthful-offender records generally cannot be compelled without a statute or an order from the court that entered the youthful-offender adjudication, unless the youthful offender waives the privilege.
Order
The court ordered defendants to respond to Pettiford’s letter by the close of business on November 20, 2020. The text provided does not show that the court granted or denied the request for production, ordered defendants to produce the records, or decided the underlying dispute. This was a procedural discovery order directing a response.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.