Komatsu v. The City of New York

Background

Towaki Komatsu filed a letter motion asking the court to compel discovery, meaning the exchange of information and materials relevant to the lawsuit. He asked the City to provide discovery materials immediately without a confidentiality order. He also requested copies of all email communications sent by or to City employees in 2017 concerning his efforts to attend public forums conducted partly by the Mayor. The City opposed both requests.

Confidentiality order

The City asked the court to enter a proposed confidentiality order. The court explained that such orders are routinely used to allow parties to identify material they reasonably believe should be protected and to require the material to be kept confidential. The court said that whether a particular document is properly designated as confidential should be addressed after the document is produced, through the procedures in the confidentiality order.

The court rejected Komatsu’s argument that the public’s general right of access to judicial documents required unrestricted access to discovery materials. It stated that the right of access does not apply to information obtained through discovery or to disputes over confidentiality designations. The court therefore said it would separately enter a confidentiality order and that Komatsu was required to comply with it. The court also stated that Komatsu could challenge a designation after receiving the documents, but that such a challenge would not affect case deadlines.

Request for documents

The court denied the request for the 2017 emails at that time because Komatsu had not shown that he complied with paragraph 2.A of the court’s Individual Practices for this dispute. The court also said it was unclear whether he had previously made the request in the form presented in his motion. The parties were directed to confer again.

The court offered guidance for those discussions. Statements by City employees about Komatsu that did not directly describe the incidents alleged in the complaint might still be relevant to the defendants’ intent. But relevance alone was not enough to require production; burden, proportionality, and other factors also had to be considered. The court said that emails from a limited number of custodians might not be unduly burdensome to produce and that communications between City employees and outsiders about the alleged incidents might also be relevant and not unduly burdensome for some custodians.

Disposition

The court denied Komatsu’s motion to compel at this time. It directed the defendants to mail or email Komatsu a copy of the order, the confidentiality order, and a separate memorandum endorsement entered that day.