By Charlotte Waldman
Can the public see whether a police officer sued for police misconduct in New York has a record of prior misconduct? This Note examines access and secrecy surrounding law enforcement misconduct records produced in federal civil rights litigation in New York. It argues that federal protective orders should respond to increased transparency norms at the state level in order to vindicate the public access interests inherent in liberal disclosure rules.
When New Yorkers injured by police officers file civil rights lawsuits in federal court, discovery sometimes reveals that the defendant officer has a history of misconduct. Despite the public concerns that this raises, federal courts in New York have historically shielded law enforcement disciplinary records from public disclosure under protective orders, relying on Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c). In June 2020, however, the New York State Legislature repealed Civil Rights Law 50-a, establishing a state presumption of transparency for law enforcement records under New York’s Freedom of Information Law with the intention of increasing transparency and addressing police brutality. Since then, federal courts presiding over police misconduct lawsuits have confronted whether their Rule 26(c) determinations to shield disciplinary records under protective orders should account for this change in state FOIL law.
The resulting decisions have been divided in outcome and inconsistent in reasoning. Courts in the Eastern District of New York have generally imposed higher standards for shielding police misconduct records in light of the state’s new presumption of openness. But courts in the Southern District of New York have largely refused to consider the 2020 FOIL amendments in evaluating whether Rule 26(c) protection is warranted. The S.D.N.Y. also declined to reconsider automatic protective orders covering police misconduct records under its 1983 Plan.
This Note argues that the federal protective order inquiry under Rule 26(c) should account for increased transparency in state law—particularly in civil rights litigation, when the records at issue concern state officers sued for violating constitutional rights. The 2020 repeal of Civil Rights Law 50-a reflects evolving judgments about public accountability, while civil rights litigation implicates a particularly strong public interest in governmental transparency. New York’s unsettled local landscape since the 2020 state law change presents a novel setting to examine entrenched issues—implicating the tensions between state and federal law, between the presumption of transparency and the reality of access, and between the competing interests of public accountability and private civil discovery. Ultimately, how federal courts respond to New York’s 2020 shift toward transparency in state law will affect both federal procedural approaches to state decisions about public governance and the long-term impact of the legislature’s efforts to combat police brutality.
Download Article
