Ralph v. Town of Southampton et al

Filing 36

ORDER granting 31 Motion for Protective Order. For the reasons set forth in the attached Order, Defendants' motion for a protective order with respect to Officer Sickles' personnel file is granted. A status conference has been set for 7/20/16 at 10:30 a.m. in courtroom 820 of the Central Islip courthouse. Ordered by Magistrate Judge Steven I. Locke on 6/29/2016. (Walsh, Kenneth)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
-----------------------------------------------------------------------X
SUSAN RALPH,

ORDER
15-CV-764 (JFB)(SIL)

Plaintiff,
-againstTOWN OF SOUTHAMPTON, CHIEF OF POLICE
ROBERT PEARCE, and LIEUTENANT JAMES
KIERNAN,
Defendants.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------X
LOCKE, Magistrate Judge:

On April 7, 2016, Defendants Town of Southampton (“Southampton” or the
“Town”), Chief of Police Robert Pearce, and Lieutenant James Kiernan (collectively,
“Defendants”) filed a motion seeking an Order protecting from disclosure various
personnel files of Lieutenant Kiernan and non-party police officer Eric Sickles (the
“Personnel Files Motion”).1 See Docket Entry (“DE”) [31]. According to Defendants,
Officer Sickles’ personnel file is both irrelevant to Plaintiff’s claims, and protected
from disclosure pursuant to N.Y. Civ. Rights Law § 50-a. Id. Plaintiff argued that
Officer Sickles’ personnel file is relevant because it “may show which individuals in
the [Southampton Police Department] were aware of Plaintiff’s speech (knowledge),
the subject matter of her speech (truthfulness), whether plaintiff was the only
employee to speak out (causation/evidence of similarly situated employees), and the
state of mind of the people who heard the speech (causation).” See DE [32] at 2.

The relevant facts and background are discussed at length in this Court’s June 16, 2016
Order granting in part and denying in part Defendants’ motion for a protective order, and are not
discussed herein. See DE [35].
1

1

On June 16, 2016, the Court granted in part and denied in part the Personnel
Files Motion and directed Defendants to submit Officer Sickles’ personnel file to the
Court to conduct an in camera review “in order to balance the relevance of the
personnel file to Plaintiff’s claims against Defendants’ interest in keeping the
personnel file confidential.” See DE [35] at 18. On June 23, 2016, Defendants
submitted Officer Sickles’ personnel file for the Court’s review. Having reviewed
Defendants’ submission, the Court concludes that Defendants’ interest in keeping
Officer Sickles’ personnel file confidential outweighs the relevance of the material
contained therein.
As the Court previously observed, to prevail on her claim for First Amendment
retaliation, Plaintiff will be required to establish: “(1) that the speech at issue was
protected, (2) that [s]he suffered an adverse employment action, and (3) that there
was a causal connection between the protected speech and the adverse employment
action.” Cotarelo v. Vill. of Sleepy Hollow Police Dep’t, 460 F.3d 247, 251 (2d Cir.
2006) (quoting Diesel v. Town of Lewisboro, 232 F.3d 92, 107 (2d Cir. 2000)).
However, Officer Sickles’ personnel file neither contains any reference to Plaintiff’s
statements regarding Sickles’ alleged drug problem and the Southampton Police
Department’s handling of any such problem, nor identifies any individual who was
aware of Plaintiff’s statements. Likewise, Officer Sickles’ personnel file does not
identify any other Southampton Police Department officer who spoke out regarding
Officer Sickles’ drug problem such that a retaliatory intent could be inferred based
on disparate treatment towards Ralph. See Gronowski v. Spencer, 424 F.3d 285, 295

2

(2d Cir. 2005) (holding that evidence of disparate treatment between the plaintiff and
other employees substantiated the causal connection necessary to establish First
Amendment retaliation). Therefore, the information in Officer Sickles’ personnel file
is not relevant to Plaintiff’s First Amendment retaliation claim, and it need not be
produced. See Cody v. N.Y.S. Div. of State Police, No. 07-CV-3735, 2008 WL 3252081,
at *3 (E.D.N.Y. July 31, 2008) (“[E]ven where no substantial harm is shown . . . an
objection as to the relevance of the documents may prevent their disclosure.”);
Mercado v. Div. of New York State Police, 989 F. Supp. 521, 522 (S.D.N.Y. 1998) (“[A]
federal court must balance the plaintiff’s interests in disclosure against the state’s
legitimate concern of protecting the confidentiality of the officers’ personnel files from
unnecessary intrusions.”).
Based on the foregoing, Defendants’ motion for a protective order with respect
to Officer Sickles’ personnel file is granted. A status conference has been set for July
20, 2016 at 10:30 a.m. in courtroom 820 of the Central Islip courthouse.

Dated: Central Islip, New York
June 29, 2016

SO ORDERED
/s Steven I. Locke
STEVEN I. LOCKE
United States Magistrate Judge

3