Douglas v. City of Peekskill

Background

The plaintiff moved to unseal and obtain two categories of materials from the Westchester County District Attorney’s Office. First, the plaintiff sought records concerning arrests or criminal prosecutions of witnesses or other people investigated in connection with the plaintiff’s underlying criminal matter, including Jerry Newton, Yolanda Newton, Taquan Shealy, Tyrell Moseley, and Jason Tinsley. Second, the plaintiff sought all records concerning the grand-jury proceedings in that matter, including witness-testimony minutes and exhibits.

Westchester County opposed the motion in part. The opinion states that the plaintiff suggested some criminal-history records might concern proceedings that did not result in convictions, but the plaintiff did not explain why those sealed records would be relevant to the claims in this case. The County did not oppose releasing records concerning Jerry Newton and Yolanda Newton to the extent those records were in the County’s files relating to the plaintiff’s underlying prosecution.

Criminal-history records

The court agreed that the plaintiff had not shown why sealed records outside the County’s files concerning the plaintiff’s prosecution were relevant. It therefore denied without prejudice the request for those records, except to the extent the records concerning Jerry Newton and Yolanda Newton were included in the County’s files relating to the plaintiff’s prosecution.

The court directed Westchester County to produce the Jerry Newton and Yolanda Newton records as part of discovery in this action. The materials may be used solely in this action and are subject to any applicable protective order. If an unsealing order is required, the County must submit a proposed order within five days.

Grand-jury materials

The plaintiff acknowledged already possessing grand-jury minutes for Jerry Newton, Courtney Jones, Gregory Jones, Christopher Vazeos, and Marcos Martinez, apparently because they were provided during the underlying criminal trial. The plaintiff did not identify other grand-jury witnesses or show why additional testimony or exhibits were necessary to avoid injustice.

The court concluded that the plaintiff had not shown the required specific need for additional grand-jury materials and that the request for the entire grand-jury record was too broad. It denied without prejudice the request for the full record, allowing the possibility of a more targeted request.

Disposition

The plaintiff’s motion was granted in part and otherwise denied without prejudice. The Clerk was directed to close Dkt. 69.