Adams-Flores v. City of New York
- Jesse Furman
- 1:18-cv-12150
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Adams-Flores v. City of New York, Judge Furman temporarily granted defendants’ motion to seal a Department of Investigation report and related discussions.
The order affects the defendants’ filing of the Department of Investigation report and related summary-judgment materials, the plaintiff, witnesses identified in the report, and public access to those judicial records.
What happened
In Adams-Flores v. City of New York, the defendants asked to file a Department of Investigation report under seal and redact references to it in their summary-judgment papers. The plaintiff agreed to the request.
The report included names and statements from people who reported misconduct or were interviewed during the investigation. The defendants argued that sealing would protect witnesses’ privacy and encourage people to report misconduct. The court temporarily granted the motion to seal.
Judge Jesse M. Furman said the court would decide later whether the material should remain sealed or redacted when ruling on the underlying motion. He also directed the Clerk of Court to terminate ECF No. 161.
The detailed version
- Adams-Flores v. City of New York · No. 1:18-cv-12150
- Jesse Furman
- Apr. 29, 2022
Background
The defendants— the City of New York, Cynthia Brann, Jeff Thamkittikasem, and Martin Murphy—asked for permission to file a Department of Investigation report under seal. They also asked to redact discussions of information from that report in their statement of undisputed facts and memorandum supporting their motion for summary judgment. The plaintiff consented, and the parties stipulated that the exhibit was confidential.
The report concerned the plaintiff’s conduct and contained the names of people who reported misconduct to the Department of Correction’s Office of Equal Employment Opportunity and to the Department of Investigation. It also contained witness names and details from witness interviews. The defendants argued that sealing would protect witnesses’ privacy, preserve the confidentiality of sources, and support continued reporting of misconduct.
Ruling
The court granted the motion to seal temporarily. It stated that it would assess whether the material should remain sealed or redacted when deciding the underlying summary-judgment motion. The court directed the Clerk of Court to terminate ECF No. 161.
What the Order Did Not Decide
This order did not decide the underlying summary-judgment motion or make a final ruling on whether the report and related discussions would remain sealed. Judge Jesse M. Furman’s order addressed only the temporary sealing request.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.