Sow v. City Of New York
- Colleen McMahon
- 1:21-cv-00533
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 5
In Sow v. City of New York, Judge McMahon approved confidentiality procedures for sharing class members’ identifying information to administer a proposed settlement.
The parties, settlement-class members, class counsel, defense counsel, Rust Consulting, Inc., and specified New York City agencies involved in administering the proposed settlement.
What happened
Sow v. City of New York involved a proposed class-action settlement and the information needed to notify class members and process their claims. The parties asked the court to authorize the sharing of personal information with Rust Consulting, Inc., the proposed claims administrator.
The order allowed the parties to provide information such as class members’ names, aliases, Social Security numbers when appropriate, birth dates, summons and arrest numbers, identification numbers, and last known addresses. It also allowed certain sealed New York Police Department records to be unsealed for the limited purpose of transmitting identifying information for settlement administration.
The order required the information to remain confidential and limited who could receive it and how it could be used. Judge McMahon also required people receiving the information or draft settlement documents to review the confidentiality order and give written consent to its restrictions.
The detailed version
- Sow v. City Of New York · No. 1:21-cv-00533
- Colleen McMahon
- Aug. 25, 2023
Background
The parties submitted a stipulated confidentiality order concerning administration of a proposed class-action settlement. They anticipated filing a settlement agreement and asking for preliminary approval of the settlement. Rust Consulting, Inc. was identified as the proposed claims administrator.
The parties stated that settlement administration and notice to the settlement class would require access to information held by the New York City Police Department and other City agencies. The information could include records protected by federal, state, and local privacy laws. The plaintiffs also wanted to share draft preliminary-approval papers and draft short-form and long-form notices with Rust Consulting for review of the claims-administration process.
Court-Ordered Protections
The order authorized the parties to provide the claims administrator with information required by the settlement agreement. The listed information included class members’ full names, known aliases, Social Security numbers when appropriate, dates of birth, summons numbers, arrest numbers, New York State identification numbers, and last known addresses.
Information provided solely to administer the settlement was required to remain confidential. Disclosure was limited to class counsel, defense counsel, certain City agencies, the claims administrator, and, if necessary, the court through an application to file under seal. Class counsel and the claims administrator could disclose information to their staff only when necessary to carry out the order, and they could disclose a class member’s confidential information to that class member when necessary.
The order also unsealed, for the limited purpose described in the order, New York Police Department records produced in discovery that concerned settlement-class members and had been sealed under specified federal, state, and local laws. The plaintiffs were authorized to provide Rust Consulting with draft settlement-related documents solely for review of claims administration. Before disclosure, class counsel had to give each recipient a copy of the confidentiality order, obtain written consent to its restrictions, retain the signed consent, and promptly provide copies to defense counsel.
Disposition
The court entered the parties’ confidentiality stipulation as an order. The order concerned access to and protection of information for administering a proposed settlement; the text does not decide the underlying claims or grant final approval of the settlement.
Read the full 5-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.