Davis et al v. The City of New York et al

Filing 191

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER. Accordingly, on reconsideration, plaintiffs' motion to compel production of documents 17, 21, 51 and 54 is denied. (Signed by Magistrate Judge Henry B. Pitman on 6/26/2012) Copies Sent By Chambers. (rjm)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

-----------------------------------X

.,
KELTON DAVIS, et
10 Civ. 699 (SAS) (HBP)

Plaintiffs,

MEMORANDUM OPINION
AND ORDER

-againstTHE CITY OF NEW YORK, et al.,
Defendants.

-----------------------------------x
PITMAN, United States Magistrate Judge:

By an endorsed Order dated June 20, 2012, Judge
Scheindlin directed that I reconsider my ruling with respect to
four documents -- Documents 17, 21, 51 and 54 -- that the City is
withholding on the grounds of the attorney-client and delibera­
tive process privileges.

On reconsideration, I grant the City's

application for in camera review and upon reviewing the documents
in camera, I deny

plaintiff's application to compel produc­

tion.
The first three documents are draft memoranda prepared
by a Police Department attorney to an Assistant Deputy Commis­
sioner addressing several legal issues that arise in connection
with vertical patrol stops in NYCHA-owned buildings, with hand­
wr

marginalia.

The principal issue that I had with the

City's listings for these memoranda in its index of privileged

documents was that the descriptions did not suggest that legal
skills had been involved in the preparation of the memoranda.
Not every utterance or memo from an attorney to a client is
leged.

For example, attorneys routinely author documents

such as transmittal letters, memos seeking to schedule meetings,
memos advising when meetings will be held and memos reporting on
the outcome of legal proceedings.

None of these documents would

be privileged unless they contained legal advice or analysis or
reflected a client con

communicated for the purpose of

obtaining legal advice.

If the City had been more forthcoming in

its descriptions of these three documents and disclosed
that they were dra

I analyses, much time and trouble could

have been avoided.
The fourth document is also a draft memorandum prepared
by a Police

attorney to an Assistant Deputy Commis­

sioner addressing numerous legal issues in connection with
rulemaking.

It also reflects the author's legal

therefore, privi

2

NYCHA

ysis and is,

ration, plainti

Accordingly, on recons
compel product

, motion to

of documents 17, 21, 51 and 54 is denied.

Dated: New York, New York
June 26, 2012
SO ORDERED

HENRY Pl MAN
United States Magistrate Judge
Copies transmitted to:
Johnathan J. Smith, Esq.
NAACP Legal Defense &
Education FUND, Inc.
16th Floor
99 Hudson Street
New York, New York 10013
Katharine E.G. Booker, Esq.
Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton
& Garrison LLP
1285 Avenue of the Arne cas
New York, New York 10019
Nancy Rosenbloom, Esq.
The
Aid Society of
New York
199 Water Street
New York, New York 10038
Tonya Jenerette, Esq.
Senior Counsel
Spe
ral Litigation Division
Office of the Corporation Counsel
City of New York
100 Chu
Street
New York, New York 10007

3

Steven J. Rappaport, Esq.
New York City Housing Authori
9th Floor
250 Broadway
New York, New York 10007

4