Stollman et al v. Williams et al

Filing 77

ORDER denying 54 Letter Motion to Compel. Based on the motion record and the arguments made during the conference, and for the reasons communicated to the conference participants, the Court finds that the instant action is not a "relevant c ourt proceeding," as contemplated by N.Y. Social Service Law § 423-a(5)(A), which would permit the disclosure to the plaintiffs of the material described in the subpoena. Therefore, Safe Horizon need not comply with the subpoena and the plaintiffs' motion, Docket Entry No. 54, that Safe Horizon be held in contempt of court for failing to comply with the subpoena, is denied.. SO ORDERED.. (Signed by Magistrate Judge Kevin Nathaniel Fox on 11/18/2021) (kv)

Case 1:20-cv-08937-JPC-KNF Document 77 Filed 11/18/21 Page 1 of 2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
-----------------------------------------------------------------X
SHMUEL STOLLMAN and ELISA STOLLMAN,
on behalf of their infant children E.S. and L.S.,
Plaintiffs,
- against LAKEASHA WILLIAMS, MIRIAM ORTIZ-DOWNES,
GLENN HYMAN, KAI HAYES, EDWARD O’CONNOR,
ANNEMARIE FUSCHETTI, KEREN ENNETTE,
CARMELA MONTANILE, EBONY RUSSELL,
TONYA WHEELOCK, and CITY OF NEW YORK,

ORDER

20-CV-8937 (PAE)(KNF)

Defendants.
-----------------------------------------------------------------X
KEVIN NATHANIEL FOX
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

This writing memorializes the determination made by the Court during the conference
held on November 18, 2021. The plaintiffs filed a motion, Docket Entry No. 54, seeking an
order, pursuant to Rule 45(g) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, holding Safe Horizon, Inc.
(“Safe Horizon”), in contempt of court for failing to comply with a subpoena duces tecum. Safe
Horizon is not a party to this action. Through the subpoena, the plaintiffs sought documents, and
video and audio recordings relating to infant plaintiff ES’s November 8, 2017forensic interview
conducted at Safe Horizon’s affiliate, the Brooklyn Child Advocacy Center (“BCAC”). Safe
Horizon objected to the subpoena, contending that the materials sought are confidential and
shielded from disclosure under N.Y. Social Service Law § 423-a(5)(A). That statute protects the
confidentiality of “files, reports, records, communications, working papers or videotaped
interviews” of child advocacy centers, such as BCAC, and only permits their disclosure for
enumerated uses, including “for the purpose of investigation, prosecution and/or adjudication in
any relevant court proceeding.” Based on the motion record and the arguments made during the
conference, and for the reasons communicated to the conference participants, the Court finds that

Case 1:20-cv-08937-JPC-KNF Document 77 Filed 11/18/21 Page 2 of 2

the instant action is not a “relevant court proceeding,” as contemplated by N.Y. Social Service
Law § 423-a(5)(A), which would permit the disclosure to the plaintiffs of the material described
in the subpoena. Therefore, Safe Horizon need not comply with the subpoena and the plaintiffs’
motion, Docket Entry No. 54, that Safe Horizon be held in contempt of court for failing to
comply with the subpoena, is denied..
Dated: New York, New York
November 18, 2021

SO ORDERED:

-2-