IN RE: NEW YORK CITY POLICING DURING SUMMER 2020 DEMONSTRATIONS

Background

The plaintiffs in four consolidated cases alleged that the City of New York, the New York City Police Department (NYPD), and certain City employees violated constitutional rights during protests beginning in May 2020. The court considered renewed motions by two police unions: the Sergeants Benevolent Association (SBA), which represents NYPD sergeants, and the Detectives’ Endowment Association of New York (DEA), which represents NYPD detectives.

The unions sought intervention under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24(a). Intervention allows a nonparty to join an existing lawsuit when the person or organization has a legally protectable interest that could be harmed by the case and the existing parties may not adequately protect that interest. The SBA and DEA argued that the requested relief could affect the safety of their members and the procedures used by sergeants and detectives during demonstrations.

The court had previously denied the unions’ motions to intervene, but that denial expressly allowed them to renew their requests if later developments created a legitimate effect on their collective-bargaining rights. The Police Benevolent Association of the City of New York (PBA) later appealed its own denial of intervention. The Second Circuit held that the PBA had a legally protectable interest in officer safety that could be impaired by lawsuits seeking declaratory or injunctive relief concerning NYPD policies. It affirmed the denial of intervention in lawsuits seeking only damages.

Arguments and Analysis

The SBA and DEA renewed their requests in the four cases that sought declaratory or injunctive relief: Payne, Sierra, People, and Sow. The plaintiffs and the City argued that the PBA would adequately represent the other unions’ interests and that the renewed motions were barred by the earlier ruling under the “law of the case” doctrine, which generally encourages courts to follow earlier decisions in the same litigation.

Judge McMahon concluded that the Second Circuit’s decision concerning the PBA applied equally to the SBA and DEA. She found that officers of different ranks could have different safety concerns. Detectives generally work in plain clothes and are not routinely equipped with protective tactical gear, while sergeants can direct police officers to use equipment such as batons, helmets, and shields. The court therefore concluded that the PBA could not be said to adequately represent the SBA’s and DEA’s interests.

The court also rejected the law-of-the-case argument. It explained that its earlier denial had expressly permitted renewed motions if circumstances changed, and that the Second Circuit’s ruling concerning the PBA was a later development supporting reconsideration. The court further excused the unions’ failure to attach proposed pleadings to the renewed motions because their positions were clear from earlier filings and no party was prejudiced. The unions were allowed to file the pleadings attached to their original motions, without revising them.

Ruling and Effect

The court granted the SBA’s and DEA’s Rule 24(a) motions to intervene in the four consolidated cases, but only to the extent that those actions seek declaratory or injunctive relief concerning NYPD policies. The order did not grant intervention in the separate lawsuits that sought only damages.

The unions were required to file their previously proposed pleadings within three business days after the decision was entered on the docket. The parties were required to provide discovery materials to the unions according to the schedule established by Magistrate Judge Gorenstein. The court also stated that the unions’ participation would proceed on an expedited schedule so that discovery could still be completed by the end of the calendar year.