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 IN RE: NEW YORK CITY POLICING DURING SUMMER 2020 DEMONSTRATIONS, Judge Gorenstein granted the City’s request to keep discovery-related materials sealed.
The City, the plaintiffs, and members of the public seeking access to the redacted filing, related exhibits, and sealing letter.
What happened
In IN RE: NEW YORK CITY POLICING DURING SUMMER 2020 DEMONSTRATIONS, the City asked to keep redactions in a plaintiffs’ filing and related exhibits. The plaintiffs opposed the request.
The court treated the materials as judicial documents, meaning public access was presumed, but said that presumption was very weak because the dispute concerned discovery-related materials. The City identified concerns about publicly disclosing information involving police staffing decisions, intelligence, and training.
The court ruled that the City had met its burden and granted the City’s application to maintain the redactions and seal the related letter. The order was issued by United States Magistrate Judge Gabriel W. Gorenstein.
The detailed version
- IN RE: NEW YORK CITY POLICING DURING SUMMER 2020 DEMONSTRATIONS · No. 1:20-cv-08924
- Colleen McMahon
- Mar. 7, 2023
Background
In connection with the plaintiffs’ application at Docket No. 848 and the defendants’ response at Docket No. 873, the City moved at Docket No. 871 to seal portions of a letter filed in redacted form at Docket No. 848 and related exhibits that had been sent to the court without redactions. The plaintiffs opposed the motion at Docket No. 875.
Legal standard
The court applied the three-part test previously described in an earlier opinion in this case. It assumed that the materials were judicial documents, so a presumption of public access applied. The court explained, however, that the presumption was weak in discovery disputes and was especially weak here because the underlying matter involved a dispute about “discovery on discovery.”
The City identified reasons supporting nondisclosure, including concerns about revealing information related to police staffing decisions, intelligence, and training. The court found those concerns rational and gave them weight against disclosure.
Ruling
The court held that the City had carried its burden in favor of sealing. It granted the City’s application at Docket No. 871 to maintain the redactions in Docket No. 848 and to seal the related letter. The order was signed 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.