Ortiz v. Police Department of the 25th Precinct et al

Filing 55

ORDER granting 53 Motion to Seal Document ; denying 53 Letter Motion to Stay. Requests GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. (1) The City's request that pages 8 and 9 of Plaintiff's Affidavit at ECF No. 49 be filed under seal is GRAN TED. The Court will cause the public document to be redacted and the Clerks Office shall place Plaintiff's original January 17, 2020 filing under seal. (2) As per the Court's January 8, 2020 Order (see ECF No. 47), the City's reque st to stay the instant action until the NYPD administrative trial is concluded is DENIED IN PART. This action will remain stayed until February 17, 2020 upon which date the City shall write to the Court a letter as to the status of the NYPD admi nistrative trial and request a continuation of the stay, if appropriate. Following receipt of the City's letter, the Court will consider whether to continue the stay. (3) the City's request to adjourn, sine die, the date for all answers or responses to the Complaint pending the outcome of the administrative trial is GRANTED. The Clerk shall mail this Order to pro se Plaintiff. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Magistrate Judge Stewart D. Aaron on 1/29/2020) (js) Transmission to Docket Assistant Clerk for processing. Transmission to Sealed Records Clerk for processing.

1/29/2020
THE CITY OF NEW YORK

LAW DEPARTMENT
100 CHURCH STREET
NEW YORK, NY 10007

JAMES E. JOHNSON
Corporation Counsel

NELSON R. LEESE
Senior Counsel
Phone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
Email: [e-mail]

January 28, 2020
VIA ECF
Honorable Stewart D. Aaron
United States Magistrate Judge
United States District Court
Southern District of New York
500 Pearl Street
New York, NY 10007
Re:

Robert J. Ortiz v. Detective Raymond Low, et al.,
19 Civ. 3522 (AJN) (SDA)

Your Honor:
I am a Senior Counsel in the Office of James E. Johnson, Corporation Counsel of the City
of New York, and the attorney for interested party New York City Corporation Counsel to the
above-referenced case. I respectfully write in response to Your Honor’s January 21, 2020 Order that “the
City shall advise the Court which portions of the [Plaintiff’s January 17, 2020] filing should filed under
seal.” Docket No. 49. Additionally, I write in accordance with the Court’s December 4, 2019 Order
advising that “[a]fter service is completed upon Defendants Detective Raymond Low, Detective Xavier
Reynoso and Detective Manuel Cordova, the Court will entertain applications to extend their time to
appear, answer or otherwise respond sine die.” Docket No. 44. Accordingly, the undersigned
respectfully requests that pages 8 and 9 of Document No. 48 on the docket be filed under seal for the
reasons previously set forth in the Court’s Order granting the City’s Motion to Seal these documents.
See Docket No. 38. The undersigned further respectfully requests that the Court stay the instant action,
and that all presently scheduled appearances and deadlines be suspended sine die, until the New York
City Police Department (“NYPD”) administrative trial of this matter is concluded, and that the Court hold
all answers or responses of the individual defendants in abeyance until the conclusion of the NYPD
administrative trial.
By way of background, plaintiff brings this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging,
inter alia, that four New York City Police Department Members of Service, Raymond Low, Xavier
Reynoso, Manuel Cordova, and Gregory Carty, used excessive force during the course of his arrest on
August 18, 2017. Though not organized by specific claims, plaintiff also appears to raise claims that he
was subjected to false arrest, malicious prosecution, and an unlawful search in which Detective Low
“sexually harassed [plaintiff] by putting his unprotected hand in [plaintiff’s] private area’s [sic].”
Docket No. 1.
Plaintiff filed his Complaint on April 18, 2019. See Docket No. 1. As part of his
Complaint, plaintiff filed records of the Civilian Complaint Review Board’s (“CCRB”) findings as to

individual officers on the public docket. On October 2, 2019, the City filed a Motion requesting that
pages 8 and 9 of the Complaint (hereinafter referred to as the “CCRB Pages”) be removed from the public
docket. See Docket No. 25. The City then responded to the Court’s Order to Show Cause on this issue
setting forth the City’s Motion to Seal Document in full. See Docket No. 36. The Court granted the
City’s Motion to Seal Document on November 1, 2019, and Ordered that the CCRB Pages be filed under
seal. Docket Nos. 38 and 40. However, on January 17, 2020, the plaintiff filed an “Affirmation of
Affadavit [sic]” on the docket and, again, attached the CCRB Pages as pages 8 and 9 to Document No. 48
on the docket. Accordingly, the undersigned respectfully submits that these pages should be sealed for
the reasons previously set forth in the Court’s Order granting the City’s Motion to Seal these documents.
See Docket No. 38.
Additionally, on December 4, 2019, the Court granted the City’s motion to stay discovery
in this case pending the outcome of the New York City Police Department administrative trial arising
from the same allegations asserted herein. See Docket No. 44. On that same date, the Court extended
sine die the time for Defendant Gregory Carty to “appear, answer, or otherwise respond to the
Complaint.” Id. The Court indicated that it would “entertain applications to extend [the] time to appear,
answer or otherwise respond” for Defendants Raymond Low, Xavier Reynoso, and Manuel Cordova after
service was completed. On January 22, 2020, Marshal’s Process Receipts and Returns of Service
Executed were filed on the docket indicating that service was accepted on behalf of Raymond Low,
Xavier Reynoso, and Manuel Cordova on January 15, 2020. See Docket Nos. 50-52. Additionally, on
January 28, 2020, the undersigned communicated with a representative of the CCRB Administrative
Prosecution Unit who confirmed that the NYPD administrative trial concerning this matter remains
ongoing. The undersigned will continue to comply with any Court Order to provide updates as to the
status of the NYPD administrative trial, including the present Order to provide an update by
February 17, 2020. See Docket No. 47. Accordingly, the undersigned respectfully requests that all
answers or responses of all individual defendants be held in abeyance until the conclusion of the NYPD
administrative trial for the reasons set forth in the City’s October 2, 2019 Motion. Docket No. 25.
For the reasons set forth herein, the undersigned respectfully requests that: (1) pages 8
and 9 of Document No. 48 on the docket be filed under seal; (2) the Court continue the stay of the instant
action and all presently scheduled appearances and deadlines be suspended sine die, until the NYPD
administrative trial of this matter is concluded; and (3) the Court hold all answers or responses of the
individual defendants in abeyance until the conclusion of the NYPD administrative trial.
I thank the Court for its time and consideration of this request.

Requests GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART.
Respectfully submitted,
(1) The City's request that pages 8 and 9 of Plaintiff's
Affidavit at ECF No. 49 be filed under seal is GRANTED.
/s/ Nelson R. Leese
The Court will cause the public document to be
Nelson R. Leese
Senior Counsel
redacted and the Clerks Office shall place Plaintiff's
Special Federal Litigation Division
original January 17, 2020 filing under seal.
(2) As per the Court's January 8, 2020 Order (see ECF No. 47), the City's
cc:
VIA FIRST CLASS MAIL
request to stay the instant action until the NYPD administrative trial is
Robert J. Ortiz
concluded is DENIED IN PART. This action will remain stayed until
DIN No. 18-A-3853
Auburn Correctional Facility February 17, 2020 upon which date the City shall write to the Court a
P.O. Box 618
letter as to the status of the NYPD administrative trial and request a
Auburn, NY 13021
continuation of the stay, if appropriate. Following receipt of the City's
letter, the Court will consider whether to continue the stay.
(3) the City's request to adjourn, sine die, the date for all answers or
responses to the Complaint pending the outcome of the administrative
trial is GRANTED. The Clerk shall mail this Order to pro se Plaintiff. SO
ORDERED.
Dated: January 29, 2020