IN RE: NEW YORK CITY POLICING DURING SUMMER 2020 DEMONSTRATIONS

Background

The case consists of consolidated lawsuits against the City of New York, the New York City Police Department, and other defendants concerning alleged improper policing during demonstrations in summer 2020. The City applied to keep certain materials sealed that had been filed in connection with discovery disputes. The materials had previously been designated confidential under a court-issued Confidentiality Order.

The court considered six docket entries: 369, 506, 549, 586, 594, and 613.

Legal standard

The court applied the three-step framework from Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga. First, it asked whether the material was a “judicial document”—material relevant to the court’s judicial work and useful in the judicial process. Second, if it was a judicial document, the court assessed the weight of the presumption that the public may access it. Materials connected to discovery disputes generally receive modest or low weight because discovery rulings are ancillary to deciding the merits of a case. Third, the court balanced that presumption against legitimate reasons for secrecy, such as privacy or harm to law-enforcement interests. The party seeking sealing bears the burden of providing specific reasons, and courts must consider whether redactions would address those concerns.

Rulings on the docket entries

Docket 369. This filing included a transcript of an interview with NYPD Chief Terrance Monahan. Although the City had withdrawn its confidentiality designation for the audio recording, it continued to seek sealing of the transcript. The City did not apply the required legal framework or explain why the transcript’s lack of verification justified sealing. The court denied the application to seal this document.

Dockets 506 and 549. These filings involved redacted material that had not been presented to the court in unredacted form. Because the unredacted text had never been submitted to the court, it was not a judicial document for purposes of the public-access analysis. The court therefore held that the sealing framework did not apply to those unredacted versions.

Dockets 586 and 613. These filings concerned plaintiffs’ challenge to the City’s withholding or redaction of discovery materials. Plaintiffs had submitted unredacted versions to the court showing responsive material that had been produced to them, though not material withheld as nonresponsive. The court held that the responsive material was a judicial document because plaintiffs used it to support their arguments, even though the court did not ultimately rely on its contents. The public-access presumption carried modest weight because the material related to a discovery dispute. The City offered only a general statement that some documents involved intelligence gathering and law-enforcement techniques, without identifying specific material or explaining the potential harm from disclosure. The court denied the request to seal, but permitted redaction of City personnel’s email addresses. The court also allowed the City seven days to submit specific reasons why particular portions might properly remain sealed; if it did so, the 14-day filing deadline would be paused while the court considered that submission.

Docket 594. This filing responded to the City’s request for more time to answer requests for admission and included a copy of a disciplinary charge against an officer. The court found the document was a judicial document because it was submitted to support plaintiffs’ position, even though the court’s order granting an extension did not refer to it. Because the filing concerned a deadline rather than a substantive discovery dispute, the presumption of access was very low. Still, the City gave no specific reason to keep the document sealed, and its general references to law-enforcement techniques and intelligence gathering did not describe the disciplinary charge. The court held that the document must not be filed under seal.

Disposition

The court granted in part and denied in part the City’s motion to seal. It ordered the City to file unredacted versions of Docket Numbers 369, 586, 594, and 613 within 14 days, subject to the permitted email-address redactions for Docket Numbers 586 and 613. The court did not consider plaintiffs’ separate request concerning the City’s allegedly improper designation of documents as confidential generally. Judge Gabriel W. Gorenstein stated that plaintiffs could raise that issue by following the court’s Individual Practices.