Winfield et al v. City Of New York

Filing 800

OPINION AND ORDER: The Court appends a spreadsheet reflecting the Court's rulings on the 350 documents. The City is directed to re-review its privilege log consistent with this ruling and determine whether there are additional documents on its l og that must be de-designated as privileged. The City shall complete this task by September 30, 2019 and provide Plaintiffs with a supplemental production by that date. To the extent there are objections to this ruling, or Plaintiffs believe that th e Court should re-evaluate the balance of Rodriguez factors or wish to make a substantial need argument as to a specific document protected by the work product doctrine, this Court requests that the parties first file a motion for reconsideration with this Court. The parties shall notify the Court by letter if they intend to request reconsideration of a ruling as to a particular document by September 6, 2019. The Court will then set a briefing schedule as to any such motion. To the extent the City does not dispute this Court's ruling with respect to documents deemed non-privileged, it shall produce such documents by September 30, 2019. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Magistrate Judge Katharine H. Parker on 8/15/2019) (mml)

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

08/15/2019

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

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

Plaintiffs commenced this action to challenge a New York City policy regarding
affordable housing lotteries. The City’s policy allocates 50% of units in affordable housing
lotteries to individuals who already reside in the community district where the new affordable
housing units are located. This policy is referred to herein as the “Community Preference
Policy.” Plaintiffs allege that the Community Preference Policy violates the federal Fair Housing
Act (“FHA”), 42 U.S.C. § 3604 et seq., and the New York City Human Rights Law (“NYCHRL”),
N.Y.C. Admin. Code § 8-107 et seq., because it perpetuates racial segregation and disparately
impacts racial minorities. They also claim that the City’s decision to establish, expand, and
maintain the policy constitutes intentional discrimination.
Currently pending before this Court is Plaintiffs’ motion challenging privilege
designations on 350 documents in the City’s privilege log. (ECF Nos. 729, 747.) The City asserts
that the documents are protected from disclosure based on one or more of the following
reasons: (1) attorney-client privilege, (2) work product protection, (3) deliberative process
1

privilege, and (4) legislative privilege. This Court assumes the reader’s familiarity with the
factual background of this case based on its many decisions in this action and does not repeat it
here. See, e.g., Winfield v. City of New York, No. 15-cv-5236 (LTS) (KHP), 2017 WL 5664852, at
*1-6 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 27, 2017); Winfield v. City of New York, No. 15-cv-5236 (LTS) (KHP), 2017
WL 2880556, at *1-2 (S.D.N.Y. July 5, 2017), aff’d, 2017 WL 5054727, at *1-2 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 2,
2017); Winfield v. City of New York, No. 15-cv-5236 (LTS) (DCF), 2016 WL 6208564, at *1-3
(S.D.N.Y. Oct. 24, 2016).
The City submitted for in camera review a detailed privilege log with hyperlinks to all
350 documents and, in some cases, cover emails for the documents providing greater context
for the creation and purpose of the communication and the basis for the privilege assertion.
The City also submitted declarations from Leila Bozorg, Deputy Commissioner of the New York
City Department of Housing Preservation and Development (“HPD”), and Eric Enderlin, current
Commissioner of HPD, providing greater detail as to the basis for the assertion of privilege as to
certain documents and categories of documents. Bozorg attests that she has reviewed the
documents withheld on the basis of deliberative process privilege and that they involve predecisional deliberations by officials at HPD and/or other City agencies. She attests that these
documents reflect deliberations on the Housing New York Plan (“HNY”), which was publicly
announced on May 5, 2014 and deliberations on updates to the plan, announced as HNY 2.0 in
November 2017. Other documents reflect deliberations on Mandatory Inclusionary Housing
(“MIH”), which was an amendment to the City zoning law. The MIH application submitted by
the administration was completed on September 21, 2105 and ultimately approved by the City
2

Planning Commission on February 3, 2016 and the City Council on March 22, 2016. Some of the
documents relate to deliberations on changes to the so-called 421-a homeless preference
policy, which was announced on October 14, 2016, and the “Where We Live NYC” plan
(“WWL”), which is a planning process that the City is using to better understand how challenges
like segregation and discrimination impact New Yorkers’ lives and to identify ways to improve
the City’s fair housing policies. Other documents pertain to deliberations on various
neighborhood plans for East New York (“ENY”), Jerome Avenue, Inwood, East Harlem, the Bay
Street Corridor and the Far Rockaways.1 Final versions of the above-described housing policies
are publicly available, as is documentation about public review and zoning amendment
processes. Additionally, Plaintiffs’ counsel, the Antidiscrimination Center, was invited to
stakeholder meetings and is thus independently knowledgeable about the WWL planning
process.
This Court does not repeat the legal standards for a claim of privilege, as those were
previously set forth by this Court in earlier decisions. See ECF Nos. 259, 655. It has, however,
reviewed each of the 350 documents consistent with these legal standards in determining

1

The ENY plan was finalized April 20, 2016 after the City Council approved zoning changes. The Jerome Avenue
plan was finalized on March 22, 2018 after the City Council approved zoning changes. The Inwood plan was
finalized on August 8, 2018 after City Council approved it. The East Harlem plan was approved by the City Council
on Novmeber 30, 2017. The Bay Street Corridor plan, which includes zoning changes, is currently in the public
review process and not yet final. HPD was involved in developing the plan’s and putting them forth for public
review and City Council vote on necessary zoning changes. Thus, the initial proposals were developed before the
City Council votes and in some cases there were deliberations on changes to the plans after the public review
period and before the zoning votes. However, contrary to what the City has suggested, deliberations postannouncement of the policy and pre-City Counsel approval are not necessarily protected. The Court has been
mindful of the various dates applicable to identified policies when evaluating whether a document is pre- or postdecisional.

3

whether the City has met its burden in demonstrating privilege.2 The Court also has been
mindful that privileges must be construed narrowly insofar as they are contrary to the “search
for truth.” Kaufman v. City of New York, 98 Civ. 2648(MJL)(KNF), 1999 WL 239698, at *4
(S.D.N.Y. Apr. 22, 1999). This is particularly important in civil rights cases such as this, where
fundamental rights are at issue. King v. Conde, 121 F.R.D. 180, 195 (E.D.N.Y. 1988); Skibo v. City
of New York, 109 F.R.D. 58, 61 (E.D.N.Y. 1985). A brief discussion of the Court’s ruling is set
forth below.
I.

Deliberative Process Privilege

The majority of the documents in the review set were withheld on the basis of
deliberative process privilege. Under this privilege, the document must be pre-decisional and
deliberative. Noel v. City of New York, 357 F. Supp. 3d 298, 303 (S.D.N.Y. 2019). To
demonstrate the former, the City must point to a specific decision to which the communication
correlates. Id. This does not mean, as Plaintiffs suggest, that current deliberations of a nonfinal policy are not subject to the privilege. General open-ended discussions would not be
protected, but deliberations for the purpose of arriving at a specific policy or plan would be
protected. Grand Cent. P’ship, Inc. v. Cuomo, 166 F.3d 473, 482 (2d Cir. 1999) (“[T]he privilege
does not protect a document which is merely peripheral to actual policy formulation,” and “the
record must bear on the formulation or exercise of policy-oriented judgment.” (quoting Ethyl

2

To the extent the City has suggested there is a presumption in favor of withholding deliberative documents or
that the Plaintiffs have the burden to show why a document should be disclosed, the Court rejects these
suggestions. It is well established that the party withholding a document has the burden of establishing a privilege
attaches. Grossman v. Schwarz, 125 F.R.D. 376, 380 (S.D.N.Y. 1989).

4

Corp. v. U.S. E.P.A., 25 F.3d 1241, 1248 (4th Cir. 1994))). The Court has taken notice of the
dates when certain policies were finalized versus when they were released for public comment
and City Council vote in its evaluation of the documents and determination of whether a
communication is pre-decisional. See supra, n.1.
Because factual information is not protected, the Court has ordered production of some
documents on the log in redacted form where appropriate. Noel v. City of New York, 15-cv5236(LTS) (KHP), 2018 WL 6649969, at *4 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 18, 2018). Likewise, post-decisional
explanations and implementation of policies are not protected by the privilege. Davis v. City of
New York, No. 10 CIV. 0699 SAS, 2011 WL 1742748, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. May 5, 2011) (noting that
the privilege “does not extend to materials related to the explanation, interpretation or
application of an existing policy, as opposed to formulation of a new policy” (quoting Resolution
Trust Corp. v. Diamond, 137 F.R.D. 634, 641 (S.D.N.Y.1991))). Nor are communications
reflecting routine self-evaluation of a policy protected. Noel, 2018 WL 6649969, at *4; Marisol
A. v. Giuliani, No. 95 CIV. 10533 (RJW), 1998 WL 132810, at *6 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 23, 1998).
Accordingly, the Court has declined to find privilege as to some of the documents on the City’s
log for these reasons.
Where the Court has found that deliberative process privilege does apply, it has applied
the balancing test set forth in Rodriguez v. Pataki in the manner prescribed by Judge Swain.
280 F. Supp. 2d 89 (S.D.N.Y.), aff'd, 293 F. Supp. 2d 302 (S.D.N.Y. 2003). Specifically, this Court
has construed relevance broadly for purposes of weighing the relevance factor, consistent with
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(1) and Federal Rule of Evidence 401. Noel v. City of New
5

York, No. 15-cv-5236-LTS-KHP, 2018 WL 6786238, at *4 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 12, 2018). In this regard,
the Court has found documents pertaining not just to the Community Preference Policy, but
pertaining to the City’s knowledge of and responses to resistance to or fear of neighborhood
racial change, knowledge of the nature of opposition to affordable housing development,
discussions about methods for combatting displacement other than the Community Preference
Policy, segregation within the City, and other topics to fall within the broad definition of
relevance. The Court has considered communications with City Council members about
neighborhood plans and affordable housing generally (and preparations for or reporting of
same) to be relevant as well. In other words, the Court credits Plaintiff’s argument that they
must be able to probe circumstantial evidence of intentional discrimination and has found most
of the documents on the City’s log to be relevant even if they do not discuss the Community
Preference Policy. The weight of the relevance factor in this Court’s final balancing of the
Rodriguez factors, however, varied from document to document.
As to the second Rodriguez factor, this Court took into consideration Plaintiffs’
arguments about their access to documents and information. It also has considered Plaintiffs’
contention that they need drafts of documents to ascertain options that were considered and
rejected. For the most part, however, this Court found that the balance of Rodriguez factors
did not warrant production of the drafts on the City’s privilege log because of the weight given
to the relevance of the particular changes between drafts and final documents in the balancing
analysis, along with Plaintiffs’ access to final versions of policies and other extensive discovery
on the topics in the drafts and considerations informing final policies and plans.
6

Consistent with its prior decisions and reviews of documents in camera, the third and
fourth Rodriguez factors – the seriousness of the issues involved and the role of the
government in the litigation – weighed in favor of disclosure as to each document this Court
reviewed and in the balancing analysis. In other words, these factors were additive in the
Court’s determination on disclosure.
Finally, this Court analyzed each Rodriguez factor separately in the first instance and
then weighed them against the fifth factor– the potential chilling effect disclosure would have
on government employees. Noel, 2018 WL 6786238, at *5. To the extent that the City has
suggested that the fifth factor will nearly always outweigh the first four factors, the Court
rejects this suggestion. Rather, the Court conducted a balancing analysis as to each document,
and the fifth factor did not tip the scales against disclosure as to a fair number of the
documents. Its rulings on the individual documents based on the above-described balancing
process are reflected on Attachment A to this Opinion and Order.
II.

Attorney-Client Privilege

The attorney-client privilege applies to: (1) a communication between government
counsel and their clients, (2) that was intended to be and was in fact kept confidential, and (3)
was made for the purpose of obtaining or providing legal advice. See In re Cty. of Erie, 473 F.3d
413, 419 (2d Cir. 2007) (internal citation omitted). As to factor 3, the key inquiry is whether the
“predominant purpose” of the communication is to solicit or provide legal advice. Id. at 419-20
(collecting cases). When legal advice is the predominant purpose, “other ‘considerations and
caveats’ are not severable and the entire communication is privileged.” Fox News Network, LLC
7

v. US Dep’t of Treasury, 739 F. Supp. 2d 515, 560 (citing In re Cty. of Erie, 473 F.3d at 420). On
the other hand, if the legal advice is merely “incidental to the nonlegal advice that is the
predominant purpose of the communication,” then the legal portions of the document may be
redacted. In re Cty. of Erie, 473 F.3d at 420 n.8. For the most part, where asserted, the City
demonstrated applicability of attorney-client privilege. As to these documents, the Court’s
review confirmed that they involve communications and draft documents exchanged between
attorneys for the City and their clients for the predominant purpose of seeking or conveying
legal advice. Where the privilege was not established, the Court notes this in Attachment A.
III.

Work Product

The work product doctrine protects a broader category of documents and
communications than the attorney-client privilege. Specifically, it protects documents and
other tangible things “that are prepared in anticipation of litigation or for trial by or for another
party or its representative.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(3)(A); see also Bowne of N.Y.C., Inc. v. AmBase
Corp., 150 F.R.D. 465, 471 (S.D.N.Y. 1993). “Where a document was created because of
anticipated litigation, and would not have been prepared in substantially similar form but for
the prospect of that litigation,” it is protected as work product. United States v. Adlman, 134
F.3d 1194, 1195 (2d Cir. 1998). “Conversely, protection will be withheld from ‘documents that
are prepared in the ordinary course of business or that would have been created in essentially
similar form irrespective of litigation.’” Schaeffler v. United States, 806 F.3d 34, 43 (2d Cir.
2015) (quoting Adlman, 134 F.3d at 1202). In those instances where the City established work

8

product protection, this Court found that the document would not have been created in the
same manner irrespective of anticipated or pending litigation.
The Court also considered, with respect to these documents, whether Plaintiffs have
shown (1) substantial need for the material; and (2) an inability to obtain its substantial
equivalent from another source without undue hardship. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(3)(A); Obeid v.
Mack, No. 14-cv-6498 (LTS) (HBP), 2016 WL 7176653, at *5 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 9, 2016). Plaintiffs
did not meet this showing as to any of the protected documents. First, the documents on the
log related to the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development (“HUD”)
compliance review all involved discussions about possible changes to the Community
Preference Policy to settle concerns HUD expressed. Plaintiffs have questioned or had an
opportunity to question witnesses about alternatives to the olicy and potential changes to the
policy considered and that could be considered. To the extent HPD Commissioners considered
these changes outside of settlement discussions, Plaintiffs were permitted to question them on
this topic. Thus, they have had a full opportunity in discovery to vet alternatives to the
Community Preference Policy considered or that could have been considered by the City.
Moreover, Plaintiffs have not persuasively articulated why they have a substantial need for
these few communications. Plaintiffs likewise have not shown a substantial need for Housing
Connect data analysis done in connection with this lawsuit. Plaintiffs have been provided the
data themselves and information about non-privileged analyses conducted. They also have
been permitted extensive discovery on the data.
IV.

Legislative Privilege
9

The legislative privilege protects communications integral to a person’s determination
whether to vote for or against a proposal or law. See Eastland v. U.S. Servicemen’s Fund, 421
U.S. 491, 504 (1975); Bogan v. Scott-Harris, 523 U.S. 44, 54-55 (1988). Examples include
“delivering an opinion, uttering a speech, or haranguing in debate; proposing legislation; voting
on legislation; making, publishing, presenting, and using legislative reports; authorizing
investigations and issuing subpoenas; and holding hearings and introducing material at
committee hearings.” S.E.C. v. Comm. On Ways and Means of the U.S. House of
Representatives, 161 F. Supp. 3d 199, 236 (S.D.N.Y. 2015) (citing Fields v. Office of Eddie Bernice
Johnson, 459 F.3d 1, 10-11 (D.C. Cir. 2006)) (internal quotation marks omitted). The legislative
privilege also protects formal and informal fact and information-gathering activities about the
subject of potential legislation, as well as documents regarding or reflecting the fruits of this
research. See id. at 236-37, 245; see also United States v. Biaggi, 853 F.2d 89, 102-03 (2d Cir.
1988); McSurely v. McClellan, 553 F.2d 1277, 1286 (D.C. Cir. 1976) (en banc), cert. dismissed,
438 U.S. 189 (1978). The privilege does not attach to activities concerning the administration of
a law, speeches delivered outside of the legislative body and preparation for the same, the
making of appointments with government agencies, and newsletters and press releases to
constituents. See U.S. v. Brewster, 408 U.S. 501, 512 (1972); Hutchinson v. Proxmire, 443 U.S.
111, 130-33 (1979). Very few documents on the log were designated withheld under this
privilege. In most instances where noted, this Court found that the City did not establish
applicability of the privilege. In the few instances where this Court found the privilege might

10

apply, it conducted the same Rodriguez balancing analysis described above in arriving at its
rulings.
Conclusion
The Court appends a spreadsheet reflecting the Court’s rulings on the 350 documents.
The City is directed to re-review its privilege log consistent with this ruling and determine
whether there are additional documents on its log that must be de-designated as privileged.
The City shall complete this task by September 30, 2019 and provide Plaintiffs with a
supplemental production by that date.
To the extent there are objections to this ruling, or Plaintiffs believe that the Court
should re-evaluate the balance of Rodriguez factors or wish to make a substantial need
argument as to a specific document protected by the work product doctrine, this Court
requests that the parties first file a motion for reconsideration with this Court. The parties shall
notify the Court by letter if they intend to request reconsideration of a ruling as to a particular
document by September 6, 2019. The Court will then set a briefing schedule as to any such
motion. To the extent the City does not dispute this Court’s ruling with respect to documents
deemed non-privileged, it shall produce such documents by September 30, 2019.

SO ORDERED.
Dated: August 15, 2019
New York, New York
______________________________
KATHARINE H. PARKER
United States Magistrate Judge
11

ATTACHMENT A
Sort

Control ID

Privilege Category

Ruling

Deliberative

NP; communication concerns
explanation/application of policy and
announcement of new policy re: AMI; not
deliberative regarding new policy

002 NYCPRIV02116

Deliberative

DPP; Rodriguez factors weigh in favor of
disclosure; near final draft; contains
description of planning policies in various
neighborhoods; likely chilling effect does
not outweigh other factors in favor of
production

003 NYCPRIV05333

Attorney Client

A/C; legal advice requested and conveyed

004 NYCPRIV00787

WP only on p. 1, item 2 - may redact
parenthetical in title of 4th bullet and first
sub-bullet to 4th bullet/redacted text
would not have been created/aded to
document but for anticipation of litigation;
remainder of document not DPP because
draft responses more akin to explanations
of policies and not in aid of arriving at
Work Product;Deliberative policy decision.

005 NYCPRIV00882

Not DPP for the most part; this is an email
preparing draft responses to a reporter's
questions about the Flushing West project;
first paragraph on top of p. 3 of email
chain can be redacted because it reveals
ongoing deliberative considerations for
implementing MIH in neighborhood &
balance of Rodriguez factors does not
weigh in favor of unredacting

001 NYCPRIV00550

Deliberative

1

006 NYCPRIV05465

007 NYCPRIV04223

Deliberative

DPP in part; text in emails between and
among internal HPD personnel on pp. 1
and 2 may be redacted as DPP insofar as it
reflecs deliberation on East NY plan which
was not yet finalized; remainder of
document not DPP because it includes
member of The Coalition for Community
Advancement; balance of Rodriguez
factors does not weigh in favor of
unredacting portion that is DPP

Deliberative

DPP; preliminary discussions concerning
position/policy regarding East Harlem and
potential legislation to propose on
relocation and reentry; balance of
Rodriguez does not weigh in favor of
disclosure except as to second to last
sentence on last page of document that
simply reports on an issue raised by
community groups; sentence identified
above should be produced with remainder
of document redacted

2

008 NYCPRIV05559

009 NYCPRIV00734

010 NYCPRIV05448

011 NYCPRIV04287

Deliberative

DPP in part; the emails on p. 1 and the first
2 emails on p. 2 should be produced as
they are not DPP because it concerns
scheduleing; the emails at the bottom of p.
5 to the end of the document between V.
Lopez and J. Press should also be produced
and are not DPP because it does not reflect
internal policy deliberations; the remaining
emails between and among HPD personnel
is DPP because they reflect policy
deliberations about new unit creation
under IZ and funding ANCPs and can be
redacted; balance of Rodriguez factors
weighs against disclosure

Deliberative

All but last 3 pages of document are DPP
because they concern policy proposal and
deliberative dscussion; balance of
Rodriguez factors weighs against
disclosure; produce last 3 pages and redact
remainder

Deliberative

Not DPP because does not reveal internal
deliberations of administration about a
policy

Deliberative

DPP because reveals deliberations about
features and costs of anti-harassment legal
services and community outreach
program; balance of Rodriguez factors
weighs against disclosure

3

012 NYCPRIV01024

013 NYCPRIV04303

014 NYCPRIV00185

015 NYCPRIV01466

016 NYCPRIV00192

017 NYCPRIV01574

Deliberative

DPP because reveals initial policy analysis
and proposals for improvements to
mobility counseling program; balance of
Rodriguez factors weighs against disclosure

Deliberative

Not DPP on top 4 emails in chain because
it reveals existing policy; DPP applies to
remainder of document because it
discusses pending policy; however, balance
of Rodriguez factors favors disclosure;
whole document should be produced

Deliberative

DPP because draft decision memo about
considerations for making policy decision
on homeless unit commitment; balance of
Rodriguez factors weighs against disclosure

Deliberative

DPP because emails constitute
deliberations on possible policy changes as
proposed by BBP; balance of Rodriguez
factors weighs in favor of disclosure

Deliberative

DPP because it is draft document of nonfinal policy; balance of Rodriguez factors
weighs against disclosure

Deliberative

DPP because reveals deliberations about
policy positions to advocate at upcoming
legislative session; balance of Rodriguez
factors weighs against disclosure

4

Attorney
Client;Deliberative

Not DPP; except contains a paragraph
protected by A/C on p. 6 where request for
legal advice is discussed

Deliberative

Not DPP; does not reveal internal
deliberations about Inwood rezoning policy

020 NYCPRIV01068

Work Product

WP b/c prepared in anticipation of HUD
litigation and for settlement
strategezation; no substantial need

021 NYCPRIV01099

WP b/c prepared in anticipation of HUD
litigation and for settlement strategy; no
substantial need; DPP b/c reveals
deliberations about potential changes to
Work Product;Deliberative CPP for purposes of settling with HUD

022 NYCPRIV01105

WP b/c prepared in anticipation of HUD
litigation and for settlement strategy; no
substantial need; DPP b/c reveals
deliberations about potential changes to
Work Product;Deliberative CPP for purposes of settling with HUD

018 NYCPRIV00214

019 NYCPRIV01739

023 NYCPRIV05518

Legislative;Deliberative

top email DPP b/c reveals deliberations
about position/policy on neighborhood
preservation plan; blance of Rodriguez
factors weighs against production; bottom
emails in the chain are not DPP or LP;
produce in redacted form

5

024 NYCPRIV04390

025 NYCPRIV01274

026 NYCPRIV01284

027 NYCPRIV01350
028 NYCPRIV04423

029 NYCPRIV00177

030 NYCPRIV04426

031 NYCPRIV01393

032 NYCPRIV04445

Deliberative

DPP b/c reveals deliberations on policy
regarding change to CPP; balance of
Rodriguez factors weighs in favor of
production

Deliberative

DPP b/c reveals deliberations on
neighborhood preservation plan not yet
implemented; balance of Rodriguez factors
weighs against production

Deliberative

DPP b/c reveals deliberations on East New
York rezoning plan not yet finalized;
balance of Rodriguez factors weighs
against disclosure

Deliberative
Deliberative

DPP b/c Memorandum reveals
deliberations on East New York rezoning
plan not yet finalized; balance of Rodriguez
factors weighs against disclosure
Not DPP

Deliberative

DPP b/c reveals deliberations about not
yet finalized MIH policy; balance of
Rodriguez factors weighs against disclosure

Deliberative

DPP b/c reveals deliberations about
displacement strategies; balance of
Rodriguez factors weighs in favor of
production

Work Product

WP b/c prepared in anticipation of HUD
litigation and for settlement strategezation

Deliberative

DPP b/c reveals deliberations about
changes to CPP; balance of Rodriguez
factors weighs in favor of disclosure

6

033 NYCPRIV01748

Attorney
Client;Deliberative

A/C and DPP; draft marketing guidelines
reflecting advice of counsel

034 NYCPRIV00252

WP-no substantial need; DPP b/c prepared
in connection with settlement discussions
with HUD about potential changes to the
CPP and reflects deliberations about those
Work Product;Deliberative changes

Deliberative

DPP b/c draft of not yet finalized MIH
policy and report; balance of Rodriguez
factors weighs against disclosure

Deliberative

DPP b/c reveals internal deliberations
regarding neighborhood planning and
rezoning planning; balance of Rodriquez
factors weighs in favor of production
insofar as it identifies neighborhoods of
opportunity

Deliberative

DPP; draft marketing guidelines; balance
of Rodriguez factors weighs against
production

038 NYCPRIV00327

Deliberative

DPP because reveals deliberations about
proposal for Compstat/Housingstat;
balance of Rodriguez factors weighs
against disclosure

039 NYCPRIV00333

Not WP; DPP because discusses possible
changes to CPP in relation to Culver El
affordable housing development; balance
of Rodriguez factors weighs in favor of
Work Product;Deliberative disclosure

035 NYCPRIV00277

036 NYCPRIV05864

037 NYCPRIV01768

7

040 NYCPRIV04470

041 NYCPRIV02183

042 NYCPRIV04480

043 NYCPRIV04487

044 NYCPRIV04493

045 NYCPRIV00360

046 NYCPRIV01857

Work Product

WP b/c discusses analysis of CPP for
purposes of strategizing about this
litigation; no substantial need

Deliberative

DPP b/c draft reveals non-final conclusions
about proposed develoment project in and
around Essex Street Market; balance of
Rodriguez factors weighs against disclosure

Deliberative

DPP because reveals discussions about
preparation of report/findings for NY-CT
Sustainable Communities Initiative;
balance of Rodriguez factors weighs in
favor of disclosure

Deliberative

DPP because reveals discussions about
preparation of report/findings for NY-CT
Sustainable Communities Initiative;
balance of Rodriguez factors weighs in
favor of disclosure

Deliberative

DPP because reveals discussions about
preparation of report/findings for NY-CT
Sustainable Communities Initiative;
balance of Rodriguez factors weighs in
favor of disclosure

Deliberative

DPP b/c reveals deliberations about
onenyc policy; balance of Rodriguez factors
weighs against disclosure

Work Product

WP only as to text on 2d to last page
referencing this lawsuit; produce in
redacted format

8

DPP b/c reveals deliberations about use
CPP; balance of Rodriguez factors weighs
in favor of disclosure

047 NYCPRIV05599

Deliberative

048 NYCPRIV05600

Not A/C; LP and DPP b/c reveals
deliberations about 421a legislation;
balance of Rodriguez factors weighs in
Attorney
favor of producing in redacted form with
Client;Legislative;Deliberat section on p. 2 on Community Preference
ive
unredacted

049 NYCPRIV01873

Deliberative

DPP b/c reveals deliberation about
application of CPP in Jamaica rezoning
area; balance of Rodriguez factors weighs
in favor of producing

Attorney
Client;Deliberative

not A/C; DPP b/c reveals deliberation
about application of CPP in
Greenpoint/Williamsburg; balance of
Rodriguez factors weighs in favor of
producing

050 NYCPRIV04497

051 NYCPRIV01881

Attorney
Client;Deliberative

052 NYCPRIV04501

Attorney Client

no A/C; DPP because reveals deliberations
about New Housing Market Place program;
balance of Rodriguez factors weighs
against disclosure
Not A/C b/c no legal advice conveyed or
sought

Deliberative
Attorney

DPP b/c reveals non-final deliberations on
plan; balance of Rodriguez factors weighs
against disclosure
BEING PRODUCED

053 NYCPRIV02938
054 NYCPRIV02983

9

055 NYCPRIV04581

056 NYCPRIV03044

057 NYCPRIV03145

058 NYCPRIV03242

059 NYCPRIV03252

060 NYCPRIV03267

061 NYCPRIV03288
062 NYCPRIV03298

063 NYCPRIV03309

Deliberative

DPP b/c reveals deliberations regarding
position to take with HUD on AFFH
assessment tool; balance of Rodriguez
factors weighs against disclosure

Deliberative

DPP b/c reviews non-final deliberations on
plan; balance of Rodriguez factors weighs
against disclosure

Deliberative

DPP b/c reviews non-final deliberations on
plan; balance of Rodriguez factors weighs
against disclosure

Deliberative

DPP b/c reviews non-final deliberations on
plan; balance of Rodriguez factors weighs
against disclosure

Deliberative

DPP b/c reviews non-final deliberations on
plan; balance of Rodriguez factors weighs
against disclosure

Deliberative

DPP b/c reviews non-final deliberations on
plan; balance of Rodriguez factors weighs
against disclosure

Deliberative
Deliberative

DPP b/c reviews non-final deliberations on
plan; balance of Rodriguez factors weighs
against disclosure
CITY WILL PRODUCE

Deliberative

First 6 pages are DPP b/c reveals preplanning for MIH; balance of Rodriguez
factors weighs against disclosure; produce
pp. 7-12 b/c factual

10

064 NYCPRIV01897

065 NYCPRIV03329

066 NYCPRIV05641

067 NYCPRIV05642

068 NYCPRIV04690

069 NYCPRIV03409

Attorney
Client;Deliberative

Not A/C; DPP b/c non-final draft of nonfinal MIH; balance of Rodriguez factors
weighs against disclosure

Deliberative

DPP b/c draft of non-final neighborhood
plan for Bay St., Staten Island; balance of
Rodriguez factors weighs in favor of
production

Deliberative

Not DPP b/c does not reveal internal
deliberations, rather, receipt of input from
CM

Deliberative

Not DPP b/c does not reveal internal
deliberations, rather, receipt of input from
CM

Deliberative

Not DPP b/c does not reveal internal
deliberations, rather, receipt of input from
CM and communications with CM

Deliberative

DPP b/c non-final draft of non-final plan
for East New York reflecting deliberations;
balance of Rodriguez factors weighs
against disclosure

070 NYCPRIV04708

Attorney
Client;Deliberative

071 NYCPRIV04712

Attorney
Client;Deliberative

A/C b/c requesting meeting with counsel
on topics in email and deliberations about
policies about fostering economic diversity
in neighborhoods generally
A/C & DPP because reveals internal
discussions about potential steps to
mitigate displacement in
Greenpoint/Williamsburg and advice
sought; balance of Rodriguez factors
weighs against disclosure

11

072 NYCPRIV04713

073 NYCPRIV04765

074 NYCPRIV04766

075 NYCPRIV03435

076 NYCPRIV04775

077 NYCPRIV04810

078 NYCPRIV03501

079 NYCPRIV03594

Deliberative

DPP b/c reveals deliberatoins and analysis
regarding Greenpoint-Williamsburg
rezoning; balance of Rodriguez factors
weighs against disclosure

Deliberative

DPP b/c reveals deliberations regarding
position to take with HUD on AFFH
assessment tool; balance of Rodriguez
factors weighs against disclosure

Deliberative

DPP b/c reveals deliberations regarding
position to take with HUD on AFFH
assessment tool; balance of Rodriguez
factors weighs against disclosure

Deliberative

DPP b/c reviews non-final deliberations on
plan; balance of Rodriguez factors weighs
against disclosure

Deliberative

DPP b/c reviews non-final deliberations on
plan; balance of Rodriguez factors weighs
against disclosure

Deliberative

DPP b/c reviews non-final deliberations on
plan; balance of Rodriguez factors weighs
against disclosure

Deliberative

DPP b/c reviews non-final deliberations on
plan; balance of Rodriguez factors weighs
against disclosure

Deliberative

DPP b/c reviews non-final deliberations on
plan; balance of Rodriguez factors weighs
against disclosure

12

080 NYCPRIV04886

081 NYCPRIV04890

082 NYCPRIV03724

083 NYCPRIV04959

084 NYCPRIV03922

085 NYCPRIV03924

Deliberative

DPP b/c reviews non-final deliberations on
plan; balance of Rodriguez factors weighs
against disclosure

Deliberative

DPP b/c reviews non-final deliberations on
plan; balance of Rodriguez factors weighs
against disclosure

Deliberative

DPP b/c reviews non-final deliberations on
plan; balance of Rodriguez factors weighs
against disclosure

Deliberative

DPP b/c reviews non-final deliberations on
plan; balance of Rodriguez factors weighs
against disclosure

Deliberative

DPP b/c reviews non-final deliberations on
plan; balance of Rodriguez factors weighs
against disclosure

Deliberative

DPP b/c reviews non-final deliberations on
plan; balance of Rodriguez factors weighs
against disclosure

086 NYCPRIV05003

Deliberative

087 NYCPRIV05051

Deliberative

DPP b/c reviews non-final deliberations on
plan; balance of Rodriguez factors weighs
against disclosure
Not DPP b/c not internal deliberations on
policy

Deliberative

DPP in part; bottom email in chain is not
deliberation but merely reporting of input
from CM; balance of Rodriguez factors
weighs against disclosure; produce in
redacted format

088 NYCPRIV05742

13

Deliberative

DPP in part; bottom email in chain is not
deliberation but merely reporting of input
from CM; balance of Rodriguez factors
weighs against disclosure; produce in
redacted format

Deliberative

DPP b/c reveals deliberations on MIH and
421-a; balance of Rodriguez factors weighs
against disclosure

091 NYCPRIV05764

Deliberative

Top 2 emails in chain DPP; balance of
Rodriguez factors weighs against
producing; remainder of emails in chain
DPP b/c does not reveal internal
deliberations, rather, receipt of input from
CM

092 NYCPRIV05125
093 NYCPRIV02038
094 NYCPRIV05210

Attorney
Client;Deliberative
Deliberative
Deliberative

A/C b/c conveys legal advice; DPP b/c
reflects deliberations about policy around
421-a
CITY WILL PRODUCE
CITY WILL PRODUCE

095 NYCPRIV05221
096 NYCPRIV05226

Not DPP b/c concerns response to press
question about existing policy; sentence
regarding this litigation in first paragraph in
Work Product;Deliberative 3d email in chain can be redacted as WP
Deliberative
CITY WILL PRODUCE

097 NYCPRIV05227

Deliberative

DPP; balance of Rodriguez factors weighs
in favor of disclosure

Deliberative

DPP; balance of Rodriguez factors weighs
in favor of disclosure

Deliberative

DPP; balance of Rodriguez factors weighs
in favor of disclosure

Deliberative

DPP; balance of Rodriguez factors weighs
in favor of disclosure

089 NYCPRIV05746

090 NYCPRIV05115

098 NYCPRIV05228

099 NYCPRIV05246

100 NYCPRIV05248

14

101 NYCPRIV02371

CITY WILL PRODUCE

102 NYCPRIV05797

Attorney
Client;Deliberative

A/C and DPP insofar as reveals
deliberations re: potential MIH/ZQA policy
(does not mention CPP); balance of
Rodriguez factors weighs against disclosure
A/C and DPP insofar as reveals

103
104
105
106

NYCPRIV05798
NYCPRIV05824
NYCPRIV05825
NYCPRIV02516

Attorney
Client;Deliberative
Deliberative
Deliberative
Work Product

deliberations re: potential MIH/ZQA policy
(does not mention CPP); balance of
Not DPP
Not DPP
WP; no substantial need

107
108
109
110
111

NYCPRIV02532
NYCPRIV02547
NYCPRIV02624
NYCPRIV02652
NYCPRIV02722

Work Product
Work Product;Deliberative
Work Product
Work Product
Work Product

WP; no substantial need
WP; no substantial need
WP; no substantial need
WP; no substantial need
WP; no substantial need

Deliberative

DPP as to top 4 emails in chain but
remainder not DPP; bottom emais in chain
is not deliberation but merely reporting of
input from CM; balance of Rodriguez
factors weighs against disclosure of top 4
emails; produce in redacted format

Deliberative

Not DPP b/c does not reveal deliberations
about policy; rather reveals
recommendations about how to build
suport for Administration's policy proposal
on affordable housing

Deliberative

DPP b/c reveals deliberations about policy
regarding private applications subject to
MIH fir /Barnett Ave.; balance of Rodriguez
factors weighs against disclosure

112 NYCPRIV05834

113 NYCPRIV05310

114 NYCPRIV05845

15

Attorney Client

A/C b/c reveals subject of legal advice
sought on topic of AMIs in ENY

116 NYCPRIV02470
117 NYCPRIV02456

Deliberative
Deliberative

DPP b/c reveals deliberations on various
policy options; balance of Rodriguez
factors weighs against disclosure
Not DPP

118 NYCPRIV05883

Attorney
Client;Deliberative

A/C because reveals advice regarding CPP
and AFFH

119 NYCPRIV05885

Attorney Client;Work
Product

A/C communication aspect not made clear
by City; WP because prepared for this
litigation and reveals strategy as to
defenses; no substantial need

120 NYCPRIV05900

A/C b/c reveals request for legal advice
and response; DPP because reveals
deliberations about possible
Attorney
policy/legislation around AFFH; balance of
Client;Legislative;Deliberat Rodriguez factors weighs against
ive
disclosure; not clear how legislative

121 NYCPRIV05932

Deliberative

DPP b/c reveals non-final deliberations on
plan; balance of Rodriguez factors weighs
against disclosure

Deliberative

DPP b/c reveals non-final deliberations on
plan; balance of Rodriguez factors weighs
against disclosure

Legislative;Deliberative

Not clear how legislative; DPP in part b/c
reveals non-final deliberations on Jerome
Ave. rezoning plan; balance of Rodriguez
factors weighs in favor of disclosure

115 NYCPRIV05323

122 NYCPRIV05933

123 NYCPRIV05934

16

Deliberative

DPP b/c reveals non-final deliberations on
HNY plan; balance of Rodriguez factors
weighs against disclosure

Deliberative

DPP b/c reveals non-final deliberations on
HNY plan; balance of Rodriguez factors
weighs against disclosure

Deliberative

DPP b/c reveals non-final deliberations on
HNY plan; balance of Rodriguez factors
weighs against disclosure

Deliberative

DPP b/c reveals non-final deliberations on
HNY plan; balance of Rodriguez factors
weighs against disclosure

Attorney
Client;Deliberative

A/C because reveals discussion with
counsel about 421-a; DPP b/c reveals
discussion about strategy/planning on 421a policy

129 NYCPRIV06135

Attorney
Client;Deliberative

A/C b/c reveals discussion with counsel re:
regulatory compliance and pending
legislation and impact on policy; no need
to reach DPP

130 NYCPRIV06137

LP & DPP & A/C; communications with
Attorney
counsel re: proposed fair housing bills;
Client;Legislative;Deliberat balance of Rodriguez factors weighs
ive
against disclosure

131 NYCPRIV06159

Attorney Client;Work
Product

124 NYCPRIV05966

125 NYCPRIV05978

126 NYCPRIV05992

127 NYCPRIV05993

128 NYCPRIV06048

A/C b/c reveals legal advice on 421-a policy
and CPP; don't need to reach WP

17

132 NYCPRIV06193

LP & DPP & A/C; communications with
Attorney
counsel re: proposed fair housing bills;
Client;Legislative;Deliberat balance of Rodriguez factors weighs
ive
against disclosure

133 NYCPRIV06208

Attorney Client

A/C because draft communicaton with
counsel, among others, seeking legal
advice on presentation

Deliberative

DPP b/c reveals internal deliberations
regarding plan to maximize funds/grants
for certain housing; balance of Rodriguez
factors weighs against disclosure

135 NYCPRIV06277

Attorney Client

A/C b/c communication with consel and
others re: request to include prior
residents in community preference

136 NYCPRIV06285

Attorney Client

A/C b/c communication with consel and
others re: REBNY and positions to take

Deliberative

DPP b/c draft of prospective plan for
Brownsville & reveals deliberations about
same; balance of Rodriguez factors weighs
against disclosure

Deliberative

DPP b/c reveals deliberations about
prospective plan for Brownsville; balance
of Rodriguez factors weighs against
disclosure

Deliberative

DPP b/c draft of prospective plan for
homeless unit; balance of Rodriguez
factors weighs against disclosure

134 NYCPRIV06213

137 NYCPRIV06329

138 NYCPRIV06331

139 NYCPRIV06332

18

140 NYCPRIV06334

Deliberative

DPP b/c draft of prospective plan for
homeless unit; balance of Rodriguez
factors weighs against disclosure

141 NYCPRIV06335

Deliberative

142 NYCPRIV06342

Deliberative

DPP b/c reveals discussions about
potential Brownsville affordable housing
plan; balance of Rodriguez factors weighs
against disclosure
DPP b/c reveals discussions about
potential Brownsville affordable housing
plan; balance of Rodriguez factors weighs
against disclosure

Deliberative

DPP b/c reveals discussions about
potential Brownsville affordable housing
plan; balance of Rodriguez factors weighs
against disclosure

Deliberative

DPP b/c reveals discussions about
potential East Harlem affordable housing
plan; balance of Rodriguez factors weighs
against disclosure

Legislative;Deliberative

LP not clear; DPP as to top emails b/w and
among administrative employees b/c
reveals discussions about potential East
Harlem plan; balance of Rodriguez factors
weighs against disclosure; bottom email
not DPP b/c reflects questions from CM;
produce in redacted format

143 NYCPRIV06378

144 NYCPRIV06382

145 NYCPRIV06386

19

146 NYCPRIV06393

147 NYCPRIV06396

148 NYCPRIV06401

149 NYCPRIV06418

150 NYCPRIV06421

151 NYCPRIV06423

Deliberative

DPP b/c reveals discussions about
potential East Harlem affordable housing
plan; balance of Rodriguez factors weighs
against disclosure

Deliberative

DPP b/c reveals discussions about
potential East Harlem affordable housing
plan; balance of Rodriguez factors weighs
against disclosure

Deliberative

DPP b/c reveals discussions about
potential HNY plan; balance of Rodriguez
factors weighs against disclosure

Deliberative

DPP b/c reveals discussions about
potential East Harlem affordable housing
plan; balance of Rodriguez factors weighs
against disclosure

Deliberative

DPP b/c reveals discussions about
potential East Harlem affordable housing
plan; balance of Rodriguez factors weighs
against disclosure

Deliberative

DPP b/c reveals discussions about
potential East Harlem affordable housing
plan; balance of Rodriguez factors weighs
against disclosure

20

152 NYCPRIV06429

153 NYCPRIV06438

154 NYCPRIV06439

155 NYCPRIV06451

156 NYCPRIV06452

157 NYCPRIV06464

158 NYCPRIV06472

Deliberative

DPP b/c reveals discussions about
potential East Harlem affordable housing
plan; balance of Rodriguez factors weighs
against disclosure

Deliberative

DPP b/c reveals discussions about
potential East Harlem affordable housing
plan; balance of Rodriguez factors weighs
against disclosure

Deliberative

DPP b/c reveals discussions about
potential East Harlem affordable housing
plan; balance of Rodriguez factors weighs
against disclosure

Deliberative

DPP b/c reveals discussions about
potential Jerome Ave. plan; balance of
Rodriguez factors weighs against disclosure

Deliberative

DPP b/c reveals discussions about
potential Jerome Ave. plan; balance of
Rodriguez factors weighs against disclosure

Deliberative

DPP b/c reveals discussions about
potential Jerome Ave. plan; balance of
Rodriguez factors weighs against disclosure

Deliberative

DPP b/c reveals discussions about
potential Jerome Ave. plan; balance of
Rodriguez factors weighs against disclosure

21

Deliberative

DPP b/c reveals discussions about
potential Jerome Ave. plan; balance of
Rodriguez factors weighs against disclosure

Deliberative

DPP b/c reveals discussions about
potential Jerome Ave. plan; balance of
Rodriguez factors weighs against disclosure

Legislative;Deliberative

DPP b/c reveals discussions about
potential Jerome Ave. plan; balance of
Rodriguez factors weighs against disclosure

Deliberative

DPP b/c reveals discussions about
potential Jerome Ave. plan; balance of
Rodriguez factors weighs against disclosure

Deliberative

DPP b/c reveals discussions about
potential mobility needs assessment and
planning; balance of Rodriguez factors
weighs against disclosure

164

Legislative;Deliberative

Not DPP or LP b/c does not reveal internal
deliberations about policy, rather, this is
draft communication to CM

165

WP b/c prepared to evaluate strategy in
this litigation and in advance of potential
HUD litigation; no substantial need; do not
Work Product;Deliberative need to reach DP

159 NYCPRIV06475

160 NYCPRIV06487

161 NYCPRIV06488

162 NYCPRIV06489

163 NYCPRIV06561

22

166 NYCPRIV00537

Deliberative

167 NYCPRIV01475

Deliberative

DPP b/c reveals deliberations about HPD
marketing process; balance of Rodriguez
factors weighs against disclosure
DPP b/c reveals internal discussions about
various policy proposals; balance of
Rodriguez factors weighs in favor of
disclosure

Deliberative

DPP b/c reveals discussions about
potential East Harlem affordable housing
plan; balance of Rodriguez factors weighs
against disclosure

Deliberative

DPP b/c reveals discussions about
potential policy on center for faith and
community partnership; balance of
Rodriguez factors weighs against disclosure

170
171 NYCPRIV05569

Deliberative
Deliberative

DPP b/c reveals discussions about
potential ENY rezoning; balance of
Rodriguez factors weighs against disclosure
Not DPP

172 NYCPRIV02505

Work Product

WP b/c prepared for this litigation; no
substantial need

173

Attorney
Client;Deliberative

A/C not demonstrated; not DPP b/c does
not refect policy discussions, rather it
reflects existing policy

Deliberative

Top email is DPP and balance of Rodriguez
factors weighs against disclosure;
remainder not DPP b/c does not reflect
deliberatons on potential policy; rather,
discussion of existing positions and facts to
share with CM; produce in redacted format

168

169 NYCPRIV05826

174

23

175

Deliberative

DPP b/c reveals discussions about
potential Jerome Ave. plan; balance of
Rodriguez factors weighs against disclosure

176 NYCPRIV05353

Attorney Client

A/C because it is draft sent to counsel for
comment/legal advice

177 NYCPRIV04129

Attorney Client

A/C because it is draft sent to counsel for
comment/legal advice

178 NYCPRIV04155

Attorney Client

A/C because it is draft sent to counsel for
comment/legal advice

Attorney
Client;Deliberative

A/C because it is draft sent to counsel for
comment/legal advice; do not need to
reach DPP

Deliberative

DPP b/c reveals draft and non-final
deliberations on housing plan; balance of
Rodriguez factors weighs against disclosure

182 NYCPRIV04247

Deliberative
Attorney Client;Work
Product

DPP b/c reveals deliberations about
potential rezoning areas and neighborhood
planning projects; balance of Rodriguez
factors weighs against disclosure
A/C and WP; prepared in anticipation of
litigation

183 NYCPRIV04249

Attorney Client;Work
Product

A/C because it is a draft sent to counsel for
comment/legal advice

184 NYCPRIV04251

Attorney Client;Work
Product

A/C because it is draft sent to counsel for
comment/legal advice

185 NYCPRIV04253

Attorney Client;Work
Product

A/C because it is draft sent to counsel for
comment/legal advice

Deliberative

DPP b/c reveals preliminary thoughts on
10-year plan; balance of Rodriguez factors
weighs against disclosure

179 NYCPRIV05438

180 NYCPRIV04180

181 NYCPRIV04182

186 NYCPRIV05444

24

187
188
189 NYCPRIV05446

Deliberative
Deliberative
Deliberative

DPP b/c reveals preliminary thoughts on
10-year plan; balance of Rodriguez factors
weighs against disclosure
Not DPP
Not DPP

190 NYCPRIV04187

Attorney
Client;Deliberative

A/C and DPP; balance of Rodriguez factors
weighs against disclosure

Attorney
Client;Deliberative

A/C b/c reflects legal advice; DPP b/c
reflects deliberations about potential
rezonings; balance of Rodriguez factors
weighs against disclosure

Deliberative

DPP b/c reflects deliberatios about
potential neighborhood strategies; balance
of Rodriguez factors weighs against
disclosure

Deliberative

DPP b/c reflects deliberatios about
potential neighborhood strategies; balance
of Rodriguez factors weighs against
disclosure

Deliberative

DPP b/c reflects deliberations about
potential preservation program; balance of
Rodriguez factors weighs against disclosure

Deliberative
Attorney
Client;Deliberative

Not DPP b/c does not reveal deliberations
about policy; rather reveals
recommendations about how to build
suport for Administration's policy proposal
on affordable housing
A/C b/c reflects legal advice; no need to
reach DPP

191 NYCPRIV04207

192

193 NYCPRIV05462

194 NYCPRIV05466

195 NYCPRIV04214
196 NYCPRIV04220

25

Deliberative

DPP b/c reflects deliberations on potential
changes to housing policy and study;
balance of Rodriguez factors weighs
against disclosure

198 NYCPRIV04296

Deliberative

DPP b/c reflects deliberations on 10-year
housing plan; balance of Rodriguez factors
weighs against disclosure

199 NYCPRIV04310
200 NYCPRIV04311

WP b/c prepared to assist with strategy in
litigation; DPP and balance of Rodriguez
Work Product;Deliberative factors weighs against disclosure
WP b/c prepared to assist with strategy in
Work Product
litigation;

201 NYCPRIV04314

WP b/c prepared to assist with strategy in
litigation; DPP and balance of Rodriguez
Work Product;Deliberative factors weighs against disclosure

197 NYCPRIV04283

202 NYCPRIV05487

203 NYCPRIV05492

204 NYCPRIV04371

Deliberative

DPP b/c reflects internal deliberations
about various potential policies for
affordable housing; balance of Rodriguez
factors weighs against disclosure

Deliberative

DPP b/c reflects internal deliberations
about various potential policies for
affordable housing; balance of Rodriguez
factors weighs in favor of disclosure

Deliberative

DPP b/c reflects internal deliberations
about 10-year plan; balance of Rodriguez
factors weighs against disclosure

26

205 NYCPRIV04388
206 NYCPRIV05527

207 NYCPRIV05533

208 NYCPRIV04413

209 NYCPRIV04419

Deliberative
Deliberative

DPP b/c reflects internal discussions about
potential changes to procedures in light of
new AFFH rule; balance of Rodriguez
factors weighs against disclosure
Not DPP

Deliberative

DPP b/c reveals deliberations about
potential new areas for rezoning and
affordable housing projects; balance of
Rodriguez factors weighs against disclosure

Attorney
Client;Deliberative

A/C not demonstrated; DPP b/c reflects
discussions about MIH policy; balance of
Rodriguez factors weighs against disclosure

Attorney
Client;Deliberative

A/C not shown; DPP b/c reflects internal
discussions about potential changes to
procedures in light of new AFFH rule;
balance of Rodriguez factors weighs
against disclosure

210 NYCPRIV04424

Deliberative

211 NYCPRIV04425

Deliberative

DPP b/c reflects internal discussions about
potential changes to procedures in light of
new AFFH rule; balance of Rodriguez
factors weighs against disclosure
DPP b/c reflects internal discussions about
potential changes to procedures in light of
new AFFH rule; balance of Rodriguez
factors weighs against disclosure

Deliberative

DPP b/c reflects discussions/planning on
various policies; balance of Rodriguez
factors weighs against disclosure

212 NYCPRIV04433

27

213

Deliberative

214 NYCPRIV04442

Deliberative

DPP b/c reveals internal discussions on
MIH; balance of Rodriguez factors weighs
against disclosure
DPP b/c reveals internal discussions on
MIH; balance of Rodriguez factors weighs
against disclosure

Deliberative

DPP b/c reflects internal discussions about
potential loan program to rehabilitate
certain home/building loans; balance of
Rodriguez factors weighs against disclosure

Deliberative

DPP b/c reflects internal discussions about
Multifamily program; balance of Rodriguez
factors weighs against disclosure

Deliberative

DPP b/c reflects internal discussions about
potential loan program to rehabilitate
certain home/building loans; balance of
Rodriguez factors weighs against disclosure

Deliberative

DPP b/c reflects internal discussions about
potential tax credit; balance of Rodriguez
factors weighs against disclosure

Deliberative

DPP b/c reveals discussion about potential
programs to combat landlord harassment;
balance of Rodriguez factors weighs
against disclosure

220 NYCPRIV04299

Deliberative

DPP b/c reflects internal discussions about
potential changes to procedures in light of
new AFFH rule; balance of Rodriguez
factors weighs against disclosure

221 NYCPRIV05580

Deliberative

Not DPP b/c merely describing process

Deliberative

DPP b/c reveals deliberations about ZQA
and MIH; balance of Rodriguez factors
weighs against disclosure

215

216

217

218

219 NYCPRIV04232

222 NYCPRIV04465

28

223

Deliberative

224 NYCPRIV04475

Attorney Client;Work
Product;Deliberative

DPP b/c reveals deliberations about ZQA
and MIH; balance of Rodriguez factors
weighs against disclosure about potential
DPP b/c reflects discussion
rezonings; balance of Rodriguez factors
weighs against disclosure; A/C and WP not
apparent

Deliberative

DPP b/c reflects discussion about potential
rezonings; balance of Rodriguez factors
weighs against disclosure; A/C and WP not
apparent

Deliberative

DPP b/c reviews non-final deliberations on
Con plan; balance of Rodriguez factors
weighs against disclosure

227 NYCPRIV04527

Deliberative

DPP b/c reviews non-final deliberations on
plan; balance of Rodriguez factors weighs
against disclosure

228 NYCPRIV04533

Attorney
Client;Deliberative

A/C and DPP

Deliberative

DPP b/c reviews non-final deliberations on
plan; balance of Rodriguez factors weighs
against disclosure

Deliberative

DPP b/c reviews non-final deliberations on
plan; balance of Rodriguez factors weighs
against disclosure

Deliberative

DPP b/c reviews non-final deliberations on
plan; balance of Rodriguez factors weighs
against disclosure

Deliberative

DPP b/c reviews non-final deliberations on
plan; balance of Rodriguez factors weighs
against disclosure

225 NYCPRIV04495

226 NYCPRIV04516

229

230

231

232 NYCPRIV04598

29

233

Deliberative

234 NYCPRIV04644

Deliberative

DPP b/c reviews non-final deliberations on
plan; balance of Rodriguez factors weighs
against disclosure
Not DPP b/c does not reveal deliberations
about policy; rather reveals
recommendations about how to build
suport for Administration's policy proposal
on affordable housing

Deliberative
Deliberative

DPP b/c draft of non-final neighborhood
plan for Bay St., Staten Island; balance of
Rodriguez factors weighs in favor of
production
Not DPP

Deliberative

DPP b/c reveals deliberations on MIH;
balance of Rodriguez factors weighs
against disclosure

Deliberative

DPP b/c reveals deliberations on 10-year
plan; balance of Rodriguez factors weighs
against disclosure

Deliberative

DPP b/c reveals deliberations on 10-year
plan; balance of Rodriguez factors weighs
against disclosure

Deliberative
Deliberative

DPP b/c reveals deliberations on 10-year
plan; balance of Rodriguez factors weighs
against disclosure
Not DPP

Deliberative
Deliberative

DPP b/c reveals deliberations on Jerome
Ave.; balance of Rodriguez factors weighs
against disclosure
Not DPP

235 NYCPRIV04656
236 NYCPRIV04705

237 NYCPRIV04710

238 NYCPRIV05023

239 NYCPRIV05047

240
241 NYCPRIV05096

242 NYCPRIV05747
243 NYCPRIV05748

30

244 NYCPRIV05751

245 NYCPRIV05112

246 NYCPRIV05113

247 NYCPRIV05765

248 NYCPRIV05131
249 NYCPRIV05133
250 NYCPRIV05134

251

Deliberative

DPP b/c reflects deliberations about
community planning; balance of Rodriguez
factors weighs against disclosure

Deliberative

DPP b/c reveals deliberations on Faith and
Community Partnership; balance of
Rodriguez factors weighs against disclosure

Deliberative

DPP b/c reveals deliberations on Faith and
Community Partnership; balance of
Rodriguez factors weighs against disclosure

Deliberative

DPP b/c reveals deliberations on Barnett
Ave.; balance of Rodriguez factors weighs
against disclosure

Attorney Client;Work
Product;Deliberative
Deliberative
Deliberative

A/C b/c reflects legal advice; WP b/c
portion prepared because of anticipated
litigation; DPP b/c reveals deliberations on
neighborhood rezonings; balance of
Rodriguez factors weighs against disclosure
Not DPP
Not DPP

Deliberative

DPP b/c reveals deliberations on
neighborhood rezonings; balance of
Rodriguez factors weighs against disclosure

31

252 NYCPRIV05140

253

254
255 NYCPRIV05770
256 NYCPRIV05181

Attorney Client;Work
Product;Deliberative

A/C b/c reflects legal advice; WP b/c
portion prepared because of anticipated
litigation; DPP b/c reveals deliberations on
neighborhood rezonings; balance of
Rodriguez factors weighs against disclosure

Deliberative

DPP b/c reveals delibeations on East
Harlem plan; balance of Rodriguez factors
weighs against disclosure

Legislative;Deliberative
Deliberative
Deliberative

Not LP or DPP; email does not reflect
deliberatons of administration
Not DPP
Not DPP

257 NYCPRIV05774

Deliberative

258

Deliberative

DPP re: homeless initiative; balance of
Rodriguez factors weighs against disclosure
DPP re: homeless initiative; balance
investment Rodriguez faccommentsrs
weighs against disclosure

Deliberative

DPP b/c reflectd deliberations about HNY;
balance of Rodriguez factors weighs
against disclosure

Work Product

WP b/c prepared in part because of this
litigation; no substantial need

Attorney Client;Work
Product;Deliberative

WP to extent prepared because of this
litigaiton; no substantial need; remainder
DPP and balance of Rodriguez factors
weigh against disclosure

259 NYCPRIV05255

260

261 NYCPRIV05801

32

262 NYCPRIV05284

263 NYCPRIV05040

264 NYCPRIV05809
265 NYCPRIV05810

266 NYCPRIV05812

267 NYCPRIV05813

268

Attorney Client;Work
Product;Deliberative

A/C b/c reflects legal advice; WP b/c
portion prepared because of anticipated
litigation; DPP b/c reveals deliberations on
neighborhood rezonings; balance of
Rodriguez factors weighs against disclosure

Attorney Client;Work
Product;Deliberative

A/C b/c reflects legal advice; WP b/c
portion prepared because of anticipated
litigation; DPP b/c reveals deliberations on
neighborhood rezonings; balance of
Rodriguez factors weighs against disclosure

Deliberative
Deliberative

DPP b/c reveals deliberations on Barnett
Ave.; balance of Rodriguez factors weighs
against disclosure
Not DPP

Deliberative

DPP b/c reveals deliberations on homeless
unit commitment; balance of Rodriguez
factors weighs against disclosure

Deliberative

DPP b/c reveals deliberations on homeless
unit commitment; balance of Rodriguez
factors weighs against disclosure

Deliberative

DPP b/c reveals deliberations about
neighborhood rezonings; balance of
Rodriguez factors weighs against disclosure

33

269 NYCPRIV05821

270 NYCPRIV05823

271 NYCPRIV05828

272 NYCPRIV05331
273

274

275

276

277

Attorney Client;Work
Product;Deliberative

A/C b/c reflects legal advice; WP b/c
portion prepared because of anticipated
litigation; DPP b/c reveals deliberations on
neighborhood rezonings; balance of
Rodriguez factors weighs against disclosure

Deliberative

DPP b/c reveals deliberations on faith and
community partnership; balance of
Rodriguez factors weighs against disclosure

Deliberative

DPP b/c reveals deliberations on Barnett
Ave.; balance of Rodriguez factors weighs
against disclosure

Deliberative
Deliberative

DPP b/c non-final draft of plan for ENY;
balance of Rodriguez factors weighs
against disclosure
Not DPP

Attorney Client;Work
Product

A/C communication aspect not made clear
by City; WP because prepared for this
litigation and reveals strategy as to
defenses; no substantial need

Deliberative

DPP b/c reflecting planning for new report
of AFFH to HUD; balance of Rodriguez
factors weighs against disclosure

Deliberative

DPP b/c reflects deliberation on rentsetting policy; balance of Rodriguez factors
weighs against disclosure

Deliberative

DPP b/c reflects discussion on Homeowner
Repair Assistance program; balance of
Rodriguez factors weighs against disclosure

34

Deliberative

DPP b/c reveals internal discussions about
HPD PR plans and goals; balance of
Rodriguez factors weighs against disclosure

Deliberative

DPP b/c reveals inernal affordable housingrelated policy deliberations; balance of
Rodriguez factors weighs against disclosure

Deliberative

DPP b/c reveals discussions about how to
prepare for and comply with new AFFH
rule; balance of Rodriguez factors weighs
against disclosure

281

Deliberative

DPP b/c reveals discussions about how to
prepare for and comply with new AFFH
rule; balance of Rodriguez factors weighs
against disclosure

282

Attorney
Client;Deliberative

A/C not apparent; not DPP

283

Deliberative

DPP b/c reviews non-final deliberations on
plan; balance of Rodriguez factors weighs
against disclosure

284

Attorney
Client;Deliberative

A/C b/c draft for legal review

285

Deliberative

not DPP

286

Deliberative

not DPP

278

279

280

35

Deliberative

DPP b/c draft of plan for partnering with
non-profits and community organizations;
balance of Rodriguez factors weighs
against disclosure

Deliberative

DPP b/c prospectus of plan a partnering
with non-profits proposed community
organizations; balance of Rodriguez factors
weighs against disclosure

Deliberative

DPP b/c reflects discussion on Homeowner
Repair Assistance program; balance of
Rodriguez factors weighs against disclosure

Deliberative

DPP b/c reflects discussion on community
stabilization program; balance of Rodriguez
factors weighs against disclosure

Deliberative
Deliberative
Deliberative

DPP b/c reflects discussion on community
stabilization program; balance of Rodriguez
factors weighs against disclosure
Not DPP
Not DPP

Deliberative
Attorney

DPP b/c reflects deliberations about
submissions to HUD re: AFFH; balance of
Rodriguez factors weighs against disclosure
Not DPP

296

Deliberative

DPP b/c includes deliberations on certain
policies; balance of Rodriguez factors
weighs against disclosure

297

Attorney
Client;Deliberative

A/C b/c draft for legal review; do not need
to reach DPP

Deliberative

DPP b/c reflects internal deliberations on
various policies related to Inwood
rezoning; balance of Rodriguez factors
weighs in favor of disclosure

287

288

289

290

291
292
293

294
295

298

36

Deliberative

Not DPP

Deliberative

DPP b/c reflects deliberations about
Jerome Ave.; balance of Rodriguez factors
weighs against disclosure

Deliberative

DPP b/c reflects deliberations about
Jerome Ave.; balance of Rodriguez factors
weighs against disclosure

302

Deliberative

DPP b/c reflects deliberations about
Jerome Ave.; balance of Rodriguez factors
weighs against disclosure

303
304

Legislative;Deliberative
Attorney

305

Deliberative

Not DPP; not LP for City Administration
A/C not aparent; not DPP
Draft report re: Anti-displacement
strategies

Deliberative

DPP b/c reflects internal deliberations on
various rezoning and other housing
projects; balance of Rodriguez factors
weighs against disclosure

Deliberative

DPP b/c reflects internal deliberations on
non-profit and faith based developers;
balance cons Rodriguez facnonrs weighs
against disclosure

Deliberative

DPP b/c reflects internal discussions re:
Inwood; balance of Rodriguez factors
weighs against disclosure

Deliberative

DPP b/c reflects internal discussions re:
Inwood; balance of Rodriguez factors
weighs against disclosure

299

300

301

306

307

308

309

37

310

311
312

313

314

315

316

317

Deliberative

DPP b/c reflects internal discussions re:
Inwood; balance of Rodriguez factors
weighs in favor of disclosure

Deliberative
Deliberative

DPP b/c reflects internal deliberations re:
Partners in Preservation program; balance
of Rodriguez factors weighs against
disclosure
Not DPP

Deliberative

DPP b/c reflects deliberations on MIH;
balance of Rodriguez factors weighs
against disclosure

Deliberative

DPP b/c reflects deliberations about East
Harlem plan; balance of Rodriguez factors
weighs against disclosure

Deliberative

DPP b/c reflects deliberations about
Browsvill plan; balance of Rodriguez
factors weighs against disclosure

Deliberative

DPP b/c reflects deliberations about
Browsvill plan; balance of Rodriguez
factors weighs against disclosure

Deliberative

DPP b/c reveals deliberations about
potential rezoning areas and neighborhood
planning projects; balance of Rodriguez
factors weighs against disclosure

38

318

319
320

321

322
323
324

325

326

327

Deliberative

DPP in part insofar as it reveals internal
discussions re: various planning and
proposals for lower East Side
development; balance of Rodriguez factors
weighs against disclosure; produce in
redacted format

Deliberative
Deliberative

DPP b/c reflects planning discussions on
Jerome Ave.; balance of Rodriguez factors
weighs against disclosure
Not DPP

Deliberative

DPP b/c reflects planning discussions on
Jerome Ave.; balance of Rodriguez factors
weighs against disclosure

Deliberative
Deliberative
Deliberative

DPP b/c reflects internal deliberations
about potential changes to East Harlem
plan; balance of Rodriguez factors weighs
in favor of disclosure
Not DPP
Not DPP

Deliberative

DPP b/c reflects internal deliberations
about potential changes to East Harlem
plan; balance of Rodriguez factors weighs
against disclosure

Legislative;Deliberative

DPP b/c reflects internal deliberations
about potential Far Rockaway plan;
balance of Rodriguez factors weighs
against disclosure; LP not apparent

Deliberative

DPP b/c reflects internal deliberations
about potential Far Rockaway plan;
balance of Rodriguez factors weighs
against disclosure
39

328

329

330

331

332

333

334

335

Deliberative

DPP b/c reflects internal deliberations
about potential Far Rockaway plan;
balance of Rodriguez factors weighs
against disclosure

Deliberative

DPP b/c reflects internal deliberations
about potential Far Rockaway plan;
balance of Rodriguez factors weighs
against disclosure

Legislative;Deliberative

DPP b/c reflects internal deliberations
about potential East Harlem plan; balance
of Rodriguez factors weighs against
disclosure; LP not apparent

Deliberative

DPP b/c reflects internal deliberations
about potential changes to Jerome Ave.
plan; balance of Rodriguez factors weighs
against disclosure

Deliberative

DPP b/c reveals deliberations on research
needed to assist in policy formulation on
housing; balance of Rodriguez factors
weighs against disclosure

Deliberative

DPP b/c reveals deliberations on potential
creation of neighborhood stabilization
unit; balance of factors weighs against
disclosure

Deliberative

DPP b/c reveals deliberatons on HNY plan;
balance of Rodriguez factors weighs
against disclosure

Deliberative

DPP b/c reveals deliberatons on HNY plan;
balance of Rodriguez factors weighs
against disclosure
40

336

337
338

339

340

341

342

343 NYCPRIV02199

344 NYCPRIV00171

Deliberative

DPP b/c reveals deliberatons on plan to
work with non-profit developers; balance
of Rodriguez factors weighs in favor of
disclosure

Deliberative
Deliberative

DPP b/c reveals deliberatons on
perservation locations; balance of
Rodriguez factors weighs against disclosure
Not DPP

Deliberative

DPP b/c reflects internal deliberations
about potential changes to Jerome Ave.
plan; balance of Rodriguez factors weighs
against disclosure

Deliberative

DPP b/c reveals planning on potential
partners in preservation initiative; balance
of Rodriguez factors weighs against
disclosure

Deliberative

DPP b/c reflects internal deliberations
about potential changes to Jerome Ave.
plan; balance of Rodriguez factors weighs
against disclosure

Deliberative

DPP b/c reflects internal deliberations
about potential changes to Jerome Ave.
plan; balance of Rodriguez factors weighs
against disclosure

Deliberative

DPP b/c reveals planning on ENY plan;
balance of Rodriguez factors weighs
against disclosure

Attorney Client;Work
Product;Deliberative

WP b/c prepared in anticipation of
potential HUD litigation and for settlement
strategy; no substantial need; not A/C; do
not need to reach DPP
41

345 NYCPRIV01898

Legislative;Deliberative

Not DPP or LP b/c does not reveal internal
deliberations about policy, rather, this is
notes of a meeting

346 NYCPRIV04729

Attorney Client

A/C b/c reflects leagal advice requested
and conveyed

Deliberative

DPP b/c reflect discussions on con plan
planning; balance of Rodriguez factors
weighs against disclosure

Deliberative

DPP b/c reflect discussions on con plan
planning; balance of Rodriguez factors
weighs against disclosure

Deliberative

Not DPP b/c does not reveal deliberations
about policy; rather reveals work
assignments

Attorney
Client;Deliberative

A/C b/c reveals discussion with counsel re:
regulatory compliance and pending
legislation and impact on policy; no need
to reach DPP

347 NYCPRIV05930

348 NYCPRIV05945

349 NYCPRIV05955

350 NYCPRIV06065

42