Local 3621, EMS Officers Union, DC-37, AFSCME, AFL-CIO v. City of New York
- Lewis Liman
- 1:18-cv-04476
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 9
In Local 3621 v. City of New York, Judge Cave partly granted and partly denied a sealing dispute and denied plaintiffs’ reconsideration motion.
The ruling affected the plaintiffs, including Local 3621 and Renae Mascol, and the defendants, including the City of New York, FDNY, DCAS, and the other defendants named in the action. It controlled public access to specified filings and left the earlier discovery ruling in place while encouraging discussion of an affidavit option for Vincent Variale.
What happened
Local 3621, EMS Officers Union, DC-37, AFSCME, AFL-CIO and two FDNY employees sued the City of New York, FDNY, DCAS, and others over alleged unequal treatment in promotions above lieutenant in the Emergency Medical Services Bureau. They brought claims under federal, New York State, and New York City civil-rights laws.
The court considered two discovery-related disputes: whether parts of a defense letter discussing Plaintiff Renae Mascol’s disciplinary history should remain sealed, and whether plaintiffs’ request to reconsider an earlier order about witness Vincent Variale’s testimony should be granted. Defendants argued Mascol’s disciplinary history was relevant; plaintiffs challenged its disclosure and Variale’s required testimony.
Judge Sarah L. Cave granted in part and denied in part defendants’ opposition to sealing, allowing limited redactions concerning the substance of Mascol’s disciplinary history, and denied plaintiffs’ reconsideration motion. The court encouraged the parties to discuss whether Variale could provide answers in an affidavit instead of a deposition.
The detailed version
- Local 3621, EMS Officers Union, DC-37, AFSCME, AFL-CIO v. City of New York · No. 1:18-cv-04476
- Lewis Liman
- Dec. 10, 2020
Background
Local 3621, EMS Officers Union, DC-37, AFSCME, AFL-CIO, two FDNY employees, and the defendants named in the opinion were litigating a putative class action concerning alleged disparate treatment and disparate impact against FDNY Emergency Medical Services Bureau employees seeking promotions above lieutenant. Plaintiffs asserted claims under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981 and 1983 and the New York State and New York City Human Rights Laws.
The opinion addressed discovery disputes rather than the merits of those claims. One dispute concerned a defense letter discussing Plaintiff Renae Mascol’s prior EMS disciplinary history. The other concerned plaintiffs’ motion to reconsider an earlier order that had granted in part defendants’ motion to compel Vincent Variale’s testimony and denied plaintiffs’ cross-motion for a protective order concerning Mascol’s prior disciplinary history.
Sealing dispute
The court applied the common-law and First Amendment rights of public access to judicial documents, balancing public access against privacy interests and other higher values. It held that Mascol’s disciplinary history was relevant and discoverable, but stated that it had not decided whether the information was admissible as evidence or what the documents ultimately demonstrated.
The court found that the details and underlying facts of Mascol’s disciplinary history should remain confidential. It therefore granted in part and denied in part defendants’ opposition to sealing. The court ordered limited redactions from specified portions of defendants’ December 3 letter, related filings, and exhibits, including material concerning the substance of the October 2014 Stipulation and Agreement and other internal charges related to Mascol. It directed the parties to file public versions of the specified documents with those redactions by December 18, 2020.
Reconsideration motion
The court denied plaintiffs’ motion for reconsideration. It found that plaintiffs had not identified a mistake, newly discovered evidence, or another reason supporting relief from the earlier order. The court also explained that reconsideration was not a chance to repeat previously rejected arguments or raise arguments that could have been presented earlier.
Although the court denied reconsideration, it found plaintiffs’ suggestion that Variale provide responsive information through an affidavit rather than a deposition to be reasonable and potentially efficient. The court encouraged the parties to discuss that possibility.
Disposition
The court granted in part and denied in part defendants’ opposition to sealing, with limited redactions remaining for portions concerning Mascol’s disciplinary history. It denied plaintiffs’ reconsideration motion. Sarah L. Cave, United States Magistrate Judge, signed the order.
Read the full 9-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.