Winfield et al v. City Of New York

Filing 689

OPINION AND ORDER: Defendant seeks to redact certain information that it claims is non-responsive and privileged from the following documents that the Court held in its December Order were not privileged and subject to disclosure: 49, 57, 64, and 35 0. Defendant's request is DENIED except that these documents may be designated "Confidential" pursuant to the Protective Order in place in this action, and as further set forth in this Order. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Magistrate Judge Katharine H. Parker on 1/23/2019) (jca)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
-----------------------------------------------------------------X
SHAUNA NOEL, et al.,
Plaintiffs,

01/23/2019

OPINION AND ORDER
15-CV-05236 (LTS) (KHP)

-againstCITY OF NEW YORK,
Defendant.
-----------------------------------------------------------------X
KATHARINE H. PARKER, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

The Court is in receipt of Defendant’s January 11, 2019 letter seeking reconsideration
and/or clarification of the Court’s Opinion and Order (Doc. No. 660) ruling on Plaintiffs’
challenge to privilege designations on 500 documents in Defendant’s privilege log (the
“December Order”). Defendant raises three purported errors with the December Order,
believed to be administrative in nature, each of which the Court addresses below.
Defendant first notes that the Court, in its December Order, upheld work product
protection and deliberative process privilege for Doc. Nos. 289, 291, and 292 on Defendant’s
privilege log, where Defendant had asserted only the attorney-client and deliberative process
privileges. The Court clarifies that these three documents should have been marked “AC &
DPP” rather than “WP & DPP” in the spreadsheet annexed to the December Order.
Defendant next notes that the Court upheld attorney-client privilege for Doc. Nos. 478,
480, and 481 where Defendant ultimately did not assert the attorney-client privilege. The
Court clarifies that this too was an administrative error and that these three documents should
be produced to Plaintiffs because they are not protected by the deliberative process privilege.
1

These documents are annotated and/or revised drafts of a “Request for Proposals” for the New
York City Human Resources Administration’s (“HRA”) Anti-Harassment Tenant Protection
Program. As explained in the December Order, a document may be protected by the
deliberative process privilege only if it is both pre-decisional and deliberative. Marisol A. v.
Guiliani, No. 95-cv-10533 (RJW), 1998 WL 132810, at *6 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 23, 1998). The drafts at
issue here are not pre-decisional. Rather, the “Request for Proposals” was intended to aid in
the implementation of a program that the City already had decided to undertake.
Finally, Defendant seeks to redact certain information that it claims is non-responsive
and privileged from the following documents that the Court held in its December Order were
not privileged and subject to disclosure: 49, 57, 64, and 350. Defendant’s request is DENIED
except that these documents may be designated “Confidential” pursuant to the Protective
Order in place in this action.
SO ORDERED.
Dated: January 23, 2019
New York, New York
______________________________
KATHARINE H. PARKER
United States Magistrate Judge

2