Guarniere v. City of New York
- Denise Cote
- 1:21-cv-01739
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Guarniere v. City of New York, Judge Cote received a request to redact confidential police records, but this text contains no ruling.
The filing concerns Officer Omar Ibrahim, the City of New York, and public access to records involving NYPD personnel and investigations in Damien Guarniere’s case.
What happened
In Guarniere v. City of New York, counsel for Officer Omar Ibrahim asked the court to allow redactions in papers opposing the City of New York’s motion for partial summary judgment. The materials concerned Ibrahim’s cross-claims for prospective indemnification.
The request covered three exhibits containing police disciplinary, investigation, and personnel records, plus one paragraph in Ibrahim’s memorandum. The letter argued that privacy interests and law-enforcement concerns outweighed the public’s right to see those materials. Counsel stated that the City consented to the request.
This text does not show that the court granted or denied the request. It is a filing seeking permission to redact, not a ruling by Judge Denise L. Cote.
The detailed version
- Guarniere v. City of New York · No. 1:21-cv-01739
- Denise Cote
- Mar. 3, 2023
Nature of the Document
The provided text is a March 3, 2023 letter filed by counsel for New York City Police Officer Omar Ibrahim. It asks the court to permit redactions in Ibrahim’s opposition to the City of New York’s motion for partial summary judgment. The text does not contain a judicial order or state how the court ruled.
Background
The City’s motion sought dismissal of Ibrahim’s cross-claims for prospective indemnification. Ibrahim’s opposition incorporated materials produced by the City during discovery and designated confidential under Local Civil Rule 83.10 and a protective order for certain civil-rights cases.
The requested redactions involved Exhibits A, C, and D to the declaration of Douglas LaBarbera and one paragraph on page 8 of Ibrahim’s memorandum. The letter states that Exhibits C and D contained records from investigations by the New York City Civilian Complaint Review Board and the New York City Police Department’s Internal Affairs Bureau, while Exhibit A contained an NYPD personnel record.
Arguments for Redaction
The letter discusses the three-part test for access to court records from Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga: whether the materials are judicial documents, the weight of the public-access presumption, and whether countervailing interests justify restricting access. It argues that the privacy interests of Ibrahim and the City, along with possible harm to law-enforcement objectives, outweighed public access to the identified materials.
The letter also cites earlier Southern District of New York decisions concerning the confidentiality of NYPD personnel, disciplinary, and investigative records. Counsel represented that the City consented to the specific redaction request.
Disposition
The provided text does not state that Judge Denise L. Cote granted, denied, or otherwise resolved the request. Accordingly, no disposition of the redaction request can be identified from this text.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.