George Benn v. The City Of New York , et al

Filing 157

ORDER denying without prejudice to renewal 156 Letter Motion for Leave to File Document; denying without prejudice to renewal 156 Letter Motion to Seal. Application DENIED without prejudice to renewal. This application does not comply with In dividual Rule I.D., as it does not provide an appendix identifying attorneys of record who should have access to the sealed document, and the proposed sealed documents were not filed under seal contemporaneously with the application. Further, a mot ion to seal must provide particularized justifications specific to the information sought to be sealed. See Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga, 435 F.3d 110, 120 (2d Cir. 2006) ("[D]ocuments may be sealed if specific, on the record findings ar e made demonstrating that closure is essential to preserve higher values and is narrowly tailored to serve that interest.") Defendants shall file the proposed sealed exhibits under seal, when submitting the motion for summary judgment due today, and shall renew the application at that time. (Signed by Judge Lorna G. Schofield on 9/21/2020) (cf)

/

JAMES E. JOHNSON
Corporation Counsel

CHRISTOPHER G. ARKO
Senior Counsel
[phone]
[phone] (fax)
[e-mail]

THE CITY OF NEW YORK

LAW DEPARTMENT
100 CHURCH STREET
NEW YORK, NY 10007

September 20, 2020
By ECF
Hon. Lorna G. Schofield
United States District Judge
Southern District of New York
40 Foley Square
New York, NY 10007
U

Re:

George Benn v. City of New York, et al. , 18 Civ. 722 (LGS)(OTW)
U

Your Honor:
I am a Senior Counsel in the New York City Law Department, attorney for
defendants City of New York, Detective Felix Cruz, Detective Gerard Dimuro, Captain Delroy
Morrison, Correction Officer Xavier McNeil, Correction Officer Matthew Landow, Correction
Officer Jonathen Powell, Correction Officer Jermain Phillips, and Correction Officer Gordon
Noel in the above-referenced action. I write pursuant to Your Honor’s Individual Rule I(D) to
respectfully seek leave to file two exhibits to defendants’ motion for summary judgment under
seal.
The exhibits consist of two video-recorded statements made by a witness to the
incident at issue in plaintiff’s arrest to the New York County District Attorney’s Office
(“DANY”). The discoverability of these video-recorded statements was the subject of motion
practice before Magistrate Judge Wang. On December 10, 2019, Magistrate Judge Wang
directed DANY to make the statements viewable by the parties at DANY’s office and imposed
an attorneys’ eyes only confidentiality designation to the statements. See Docket Entry No. 134
at p. 6. She further ruled that any party wishing to cite the videos as evidentiary support for a
future motion may apply to do so under seal. Id. Defendants accordingly seek an Order from the
Court permitting them to file the two video-recorded statements under seal.
I thank the Court for its time and consideration of this request.
Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Christopher G. Arko
Christopher G. Arko
Senior Counsel

cc:

Richard Soto, Esq. (By ECF)
Attorney for Plaintiff

Application DENIED without prejudice to renewal. This application does not comply with Individual Rule I.D.,
as it does not provide an appendix identifying attorneys of record who should have access to the sealed
document, and the proposed sealed documents were not filed under seal contemporaneously with the
application. Further, a motion to seal must provide particularized justifications specific to the information
sought to be sealed. See Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga, 435 F.3d 110, 120 (2d Cir. 2006)
("[D]ocuments may be sealed if specific, on the record findings are made demonstrating that closure is
essential to preserve higher values and is narrowly tailored to serve that interest.")
Defendants shall file the proposed sealed exhibits under seal, when submitting the motion for summary
judgment due today, and shall renew the application at that time.
So Ordered.
Dated: September 21, 2020
New York, New York