Galgano v. County of Putnam, New York et al

Filing 443

ORDER: denying 415 Motion. Accordingly, Levy's motion is DENIED. The Clerk shall close Dkt. 415. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Magistrate Judge Paul E. Davison on 10/13/2020) (ama) Modified on 10/14/2020 (kgo).

Case 7:16-cv-03572-KMK-PED Document 443 Filed 10/13/20 Page 1 of 2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
Galgano,

ORDER

Plaintiff,
- (fgamsf

6 Civ. 3572 (KMK)(PED)

County of Putnam, et al.

Defendants,

PAUL E. DAVISON, U.S,!VU.:
On September 20, 2018, this Court entered a protective order [the "Protective Order J

restricting public fiiing of communications between plaintiff and specified individuals. [Dkt. 283.]
Defendant Adam Levy now seeks modification ofthe Protective Order. [Dkts 415-17.] Plaintiff
opposes, and Levy has submitted a reply. [Dkts. 427, 429.] Familiarity with the Protective Order
and with the extensive record is assumed. Levy's motion is DENIED.
Acting pursuant to Rule 5.2(e)(l), Fed. R. Civ. P., the Court fashioned the Protective
Order to address the unique circumstances of this case. As the Court explained in an introductory
paragraph of the Protective Order:

Plaintiff is a criminal defense attorney who habitually communicated with clients
and others via cell phone and text message. Some such communications were
intercepted pursuant to a court-ordered wiretap in the underlying criminal
investigation of plaintiff, and an apparently larger repository of text messages was
extracted from cellphones and computers which were seized from plaintiff
pursuant to search warrant. Discovery in this case consequently includes
numerous communications - including attorney-client communications and
potentially privileged spousal communications - which were obtained under
circumstances nol involving any waiver or other forfeiture of applicable
privileges.
[Dkt 283.J In order to protect the non-partics whose potentially privileged communications

Case 7:16-cv-03572-KMK-PED Document 443 Filed 10/13/20 Page 2 of 2

were intercepted or seized, the Protective Order requires redaction from the public docket, in the

first instance, of communications between plaintiff and 44 individuals plaintiff has identified as
clients, as well as communications between plaintiff and his wife.
Significantly, the Protective Order specifies that "any party may at any time for good

cause apply for leave to include in a public filing a communication described in this Order[.j
[Dkt. 283, p. 3.] The Court notes thai no party has requested leave to publicly file a
communication covered by the Protective Order during the two years since the Order was
entered.

The Protective Order strikes an appropriate balance between the needs of this case and
the rights ol third parties. Because it is prophylactic in nature, the Protective Order is
necessarily over-inclusive. Accordingly, Levys demonstration that certain covered
communications arc not privileged - however persuasive - does not ca!l into question the
Court's rationale.

Accordingly, Levy's motion is DENIED. The Clerk shall close Dkt. 415.

Dated: October 13, 2020
White Plains, NY

>avison, U.S.M.J.

To be clear, this Court has not been called upon to determine whether any particular
communication covered by the Protective Order is privileged.

2