Franks v. City of New Rochelle

Background

Brian Franks, proceeding without a lawyer, brought a civil-rights lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against the City of New Rochelle and New Rochelle Police Officer Joseph Wassner. The case concerns Franks’s November 24, 2021 arrest and subsequent prosecution. His amended complaint alleges that Wassner and two unidentified officers arrested and detained him without probable cause and maliciously prosecuted him. The charges were dropped on September 1, 2022.

Franks sent the court a letter objecting to the Quinn Law Firm PLLC obtaining sealed records concerning his arrest and prosecution. He said he believed there were two different criminal-history reports and that the defendants were trying to obtain false criminal-history information. He also said he had requested disciplinary records for Wassner and the two unidentified officers but had been told that no records existed.

Motions and governing standards

The court liberally construed Franks’s letter as two motions. First, it treated the letter as a motion for a protective order under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c), which can limit or prevent discovery when good cause exists to protect against specified harm. Second, it treated the letter as a motion to compel under Rule 37(a)(3)(A), which asks the court to require a party to provide requested discovery.

The defendants argued that Franks had waived the protections associated with sealed records under New York Criminal Procedure Law § 160.50 by filing this lawsuit and placing his arrest and prosecution at issue. They also reported that Wassner had no items in his disciplinary file.

Sealed arrest and prosecution records

The court explained that New York Criminal Procedure Law § 160.50 generally requires records to be sealed when a criminal case ends in the accused person’s favor. The court held that this protection was effectively waived here because Franks affirmatively placed information about his arrest and prosecution at issue by asserting a malicious-prosecution claim.

The court therefore denied Franks’s request for a protective order concerning those records and held that he was required to execute a § 160.50 release. The court directed him to serve the release on the defendants by April 30, 2024. The court also rejected his argument that the defendants’ effort to obtain the records was malicious, explaining that the defendants were entitled to obtain them for purposes including their defense of the lawsuit and their obligations under Rule 11.

Disciplinary records

The court held that it could not compel production of a document that does not exist. Based on the defendants’ representation that Wassner had no items in his disciplinary file, the court denied the request to compel production of Wassner’s records but ordered the defendants to provide Franks with a sworn declaration stating that no such items exist.

For the two John Doe officers, the court ordered the defendants to determine whether those officers could be identified. If identified, the defendants must determine whether their disciplinary files contain responsive items. If such items exist, the defendants must produce them to Franks. If they do not exist, the defendants must provide a sworn declaration stating that fact.

Disposition

Judge Victoria Reznik denied Franks’s construed motion for a protective order and motion to compel in their entirety. The court directed Franks to execute and serve the § 160.50 release by April 30, 2024, directed the defendants to provide the required sworn declarations and records as described above, directed the Clerk to terminate the letter motion at ECF No. 13, and directed that a copy of the order be mailed to Franks.