IN RE: NEW YORK CITY POLICING DURING SUMMER 2020 DEMONSTRATIONS

Background

Plaintiffs’ counsel submitted a letter concerning the defendants’ failure to produce a privilege log at the time required by prior court orders. The defendants had made a significant document production on April 15, 2022, but did not produce the privilege log with the documents or ask for additional time. The plaintiffs said the defendants were withholding documents, including materials concerning police plans, the New York Police Department’s rejection of recommendations in a 2019 report, and a new First Amendment policy. The plaintiffs also pointed to earlier disputes about the defendants’ privilege logs.

Plaintiffs’ Requests

The plaintiffs asked for attorney’s fees for bringing the issue to the court’s attention. They also asked the court either to find that the defendants had waived privilege or to strike the defendants’ first affirmative defense, which asserted that the complaints failed to state a claim. The plaintiffs argued that the defendants had repeatedly violated clear discovery orders and that stronger consequences were needed.

Court’s Ruling

Judge Gabriel W. Gorenstein stated that the defendants provided no acceptable explanation for failing to request an extension. He found that the City had once again violated a court order. However, the privilege log was produced only two business days after the deadline, and the court concluded that the circumstances did not warrant a sanction. The court also found that an award of attorney’s fees or expenses would not be just, considering the absence of the lead attorney when information about the log was sought and the short delay before production.

The court treated the adequacy of the privilege log as a separate issue from its timing. To the extent Docket No. 506 sought a ruling on the log’s adequacy, the court denied that application without prejudice to a new application complying with paragraph 2.A of the court’s Individual Practices.