Stollman v. Williams

Background

Shmuel and Elisa Stollman, individually and on behalf of their children E.S. and L.S., sued the City of New York and various individual City employees under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and New York law. They alleged that the defendants’ actions during a child-abuse investigation and resulting family-court proceedings violated their civil rights. The underlying allegations were assumed true only for purposes of deciding the discovery and sanctions requests.

During discovery, the Stollmans sought records concerning E.S.’s November 8, 2017 forensic interview at the Brooklyn Child Advocacy Center. They first sought the records from the City, which denied having them, and then subpoenaed Safe Horizon, Inc., which is affiliated with the Center. Safe Horizon said it had a small number of case-tracking documents showing that an interview occurred and identifying the participants, but no written notes, audio recordings, or video recordings of conversations with E.S. or her parents.

Safe Horizon objected to the subpoena, including on the ground that the requested information was confidential under New York Social Services Law § 423-a. The magistrate judge denied the Stollmans’ motion to compel and denied their request to hold Safe Horizon in contempt. The magistrate judge concluded that this federal civil-rights lawsuit was not a qualifying “relevant court proceeding” under the state statute. The magistrate judge did not analyze Safe Horizon’s objection under federal privilege law.

District Court Review

Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(a), a district court must change or set aside a magistrate judge’s nondispositive order if it is clearly mistaken or contrary to law. Judge Cronan held that the magistrate judge applied the wrong legal standard by analyzing the privilege issue exclusively under New York law. Because this was a federal civil-rights case, federal law governed the privilege question.

The federal standard required Safe Horizon to make a substantial threshold showing that disclosure was likely to cause specific harm. Safe Horizon instead relied on general concerns about retaliation, additional abuse, trauma, embarrassment, and discouraging reports of child abuse. Judge Cronan found that Safe Horizon had not explained with enough specificity how disclosure of the limited records at issue would cause those harms. The parties had already publicly acknowledged that E.S. was interviewed, and the records Safe Horizon described would apparently show mainly that the interview occurred and identify the participants, not disclose its contents.

The court also noted that the existing protective order could help protect sensitive information and that the interview was relevant to the Stollmans’ allegations. Because Safe Horizon failed to make the required threshold showing, Judge Cronan did not decide whether New York Social Services Law § 423-a created a valid evidentiary privilege or whether this lawsuit qualified as a “relevant court proceeding” under that statute.

Contempt and Fees

The Stollmans also asked the court to hold Safe Horizon in contempt for not complying with the subpoena. Judge Cronan denied that request because Safe Horizon had not violated a court order directing it to produce the records. The court also denied the request for attorney fees because the Stollmans did not identify a legal basis for that relief.

Disposition

Judge Cronan sustained the Objection in part, granted the motion to compel discovery, and denied the motion for contempt. The parties were directed to discuss an appropriate extension of discovery and submit a status letter by June 6, 2022. The opinion resolved a discovery dispute; it did not decide the merits of the Stollmans’ underlying civil-rights claims.