IN RE: NEW YORK CITY POLICING DURING SUMMER 2020 DEMONSTRATIONS
- Colleen McMahon
- 1:20-cv-08924
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In re New York City Policing During Summer 2020 Demonstrations, Judge Gorenstein granted the City’s motion to seal three documents.
The City and access to the three specified documents containing sensitive law-enforcement information.
What happened
In In re: New York City Policing During Summer 2020 Demonstrations, the court reconsidered whether certain documents connected to discovery disputes should remain sealed. The City submitted reasons for continuing to seal three documents after an earlier order gave it that opportunity.
The court found that the documents involved sensitive law-enforcement information, including intelligence operations, techniques, and procedures. It also found that the documents had only a limited connection to the discovery disputes, allowing the City’s reasons to overcome the presumption favoring public access.
The court lifted the stay on filing the documents publicly and granted the City’s motion to seal the three identified documents. All other documents covered by the earlier order were due to be filed publicly by November 28, 2022. Judge Gabriel W. Gorenstein issued the order.
The detailed version
- IN RE: NEW YORK CITY POLICING DURING SUMMER 2020 DEMONSTRATIONS · No. 1:20-cv-08924
- Colleen McMahon
- Nov. 14, 2022
Background
In an October 14, 2022, opinion and order, the court addressed the City’s motion to seal documents. That order allowed the City to provide additional reasons why certain documents attached to Docket Nos. 586 and 613 should remain sealed under the standard set out in Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga. The City responded on October 21, 2022, concerning three documents.
Court’s Analysis
The court considered the City’s arguments against the relatively weak presumption of public access that applies to documents filed in connection with discovery disputes. The court also considered that the documents had only tangential relevance to the discovery disputes before it. It found that the City had given sufficiently specific and plausible reasons to overcome that presumption. Those reasons concerned sensitive law-enforcement matters, including information about intelligence operations, techniques, and procedures.
Ruling
The court lifted the stay on the requirement to file certain documents publicly that had been imposed in footnote 3 of Docket No.
- It granted the motion to seal as to the documents identified as PD_E PD 00056331, DEF_E PD_ 0008195, and DEF_E PD _
- The deadline for filing all other covered documents publicly was November 28,
- The order was issued by United States Magistrate Judge Gabriel W. Gorenstein.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.