Disability Rights New York v. New York State Department of Corrections and Community Supervision

DISABILITY RIGHTS NEW YORK, Plaintiff, v. NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND COMMUNITY SUPERVISION; and ANTHONY J. ANNUCCI, in his official capacity as Acting Commissioner of the New York State Department of Corrections and Community Supervision, Defendants.

No. 1:20-CV-1487(GTS/CFH)

United States District Court, N.D. New York

July 23, 2021

DISABILITY RIGHTS NEW YORK Counsel for Plaintiff BRANDY L. L TOMLINSON, ESQ . ALYSSA GALEA, ESQ. CHRISTINA ASBEE, ESQ.

HON LETITIA A. JAMES Attorney General for New York Counsel for State Defendants BRIAN W. MATULA, ESQ. Assistant Attorney General

DECISION AND ORDER

GLENN T. SUDDABY, Chief United States District Judge

Currently before the Court, in this civil rights action filed by Disability Rights New York (“Plaintiff”) against the New York State Department of Corrections and Community Service (“DOCCS”) and Acting Commissioner of DOCCS Anthony J. Annucci (“Defendants”), is Plaintiff's motion for a preliminary injunction requiring Defendants to provide access and copies of certain documents requested pursuant to Plaintiff's authority as the designated protection and advocacy (“P&A”) system for New York. (Dkt. No. 7.) For the reasons set forth below, Plaintiff's motion is granted in part (i.e., with regard to Incarcerated Individual B) and denied in part (i.e., with regard to Incarcerated Individual A).

I. RELEVANT BACKGROUND

A. Plaintiff's Complaint

Generally, in its Complaint, Plaintiff asserts three claims: (1) a claim that Defendants' refusal to timely provide complete and unredacted records at Plaintiff's request violates the Developmental Disabilities Assistance and Bill of Rights Act of 2000 (“DD Act”); (2) a claim that Defendants' refusal to promptly provide records at Plaintiff's request violates the Protection and Advocacy for Individuals with Mental Illness Act of 1986 (“PAIMI Act”); and (3) a claim that the New York state laws that allow for redaction of certain records produced to Plaintiff are preempted by the DD and PAIMI Acts. (Dkt. No. 1 [Pl.'s Compl.].)

Generally, Plaintiff's claims arise from Defendants' inadequate response to records requests that Plaintiff has made, pursuant to its authority as the P&A system for New York, for Incarcerated Individual A and Incarcerated Individual B, between approximately February 13, 2020, and December 3, 2020. (Id.) More specifically, Plaintiff's Complaint alleges as follows: (a) as to Incarcerated Individual A, Plaintiff's representative physically inspected the relevant records at the correctional facility where Incarcerated Individual A is housed and tabbed which records they wanted Defendants to copy, but Defendants not only did not produce those copies in a timely manner under the Acts, but also improperly withheld certain pages as exempt under state law and redacted portions of those records that they did copy and provide; and (b) as to Incarcerated Individual B, Plaintiff requested physical access to (and copies of) the relevant records, but Defendants stated that those records would not be available because Incarcerated Individual B's death was subject to a pending investigation by the New York State Commission of Correction (“SCOC”), and later told Plaintiff that a request for records related to that investigation could be submitted directly to SCOC. (Id.)

B. Relevant Procedural History

This case is the latest iteration of an ongoing disagreement between Plaintiff and Defendants about the provision of records related to individuals with mental or developmental disabilities incarcerated in DOCCS facilities. See Disability Rights New York v. New York State Dep't of Corrs. and Cmty. Supervision, 18-CV-0980 (GTS/CFH). On December 3, 2020, Plaintiff filed its Complaint in this action. (Dkt. No. 1.) On December 4, 2020, Plaintiff filed the current motion for preliminary injunction, seeking an order forcing Defendants to provide complete and unredacted records pursuant to Plaintiff's requests and in compliance with the relevant P&A Acts. (Dkt. No. 7.) On February 5, 2021, Defendants filed their opposition. (Dkt. No. 18.) Finally, on February 12, 2021, Plaintiff filed its reply. (Dkt. No. 19.)

C. Summary of Parties' Briefing on Plaintiff's Motion

1. Plaintiff's Memorandum of Law

Generally, in its motion, Plaintiff makes three arguments. (Dkt. No. 7, Attach. 3, at 8-14 [Pl.'s Mem. of Law].) First, Plaintiff argues that it is entitled to unredacted records under the P&A Acts, which preempt state law. (Id. at 10-13.) More specifically, Plaintiff argues that (a) its request was pursuant to the P&A Acts and thus preempts any state Freedom of Information Law (“FOIL”) or privacy laws, (b) its requests are not impacted by the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (“HIPAA”) because the P&A Acts permit access to information that is otherwise protected by HIPAA and, in any event, Plaintiff obtained the requisite HIPAA release forms where required, (c) regarding information that Defendants redacted from the records of Incarcerated Individual A, there was no privacy or confidentiality reason for Defendants to redact copies of those records because Defendants had already permitted Plaintiff to physically inspect the unredacted version of those records, and (d) because Defendants are required to disclose any draft reports from investigatory agencies and information or records used or reviewed when preparing investigatory reports, the fact that an investigation was still ongoing into the death of Incarcerated Individual B was not grounds to deny access to relevant records that were available. (Id.)

Second, Plaintiff argues that it is entitled to access to the requested records within a specific timeline under the P&A Acts (within three business days of when the written request is received under the DD Act, and “promptly” under the PAIMI Act, which Plaintiff asserts has been interpreted to mean within five business days), yet Defendants have not been complying with the required timeline. (Id. at 13-14.) Plaintiff acknowledges that the COVID-19 pandemic may have played a role in the delays, but that the delays are still unacceptable even considering that circumstance and, in any event, its requests pre-date when New York State began its shutdown in response to the pandemic and, had Defendants followed the proper timeline, those requests could have been resolved before the pandemic became an factor. (Id.)

Third, Plaintiff argues it is entitled to a preliminary injunction. (Id. at 15-18.) More specifically, Plaintiff argues that (a) it is likely to succeed on the merits of its claims because it has shown that it has been denied timely access to the records requested pursuant to its authority as a P&A system, (b) it has suffered, and will continue to suffer, irreparable harm because the lack of access prevents it from carrying out its statutory mandate to protect New Yorkers with mental and developmental disabilities, (c) the balance of hardships favors Plaintiff because its inability to pursue timely investigations and provide competent legal representation due to Defendants' refusal to provide records as required puts its clients in danger of further abuse or neglect, while Defendants face no hardship in simply complying with the law and allowing federally permissible investigations, and (d) the public interest will be served by granting a preliminary injunction because the public has an interest in ensuring that individuals with disabilities are protected from abuse or neglect. (Id.)

2. Defendants' Opposition Memorandum of Law

Generally, in their opposition memorandum of law, Defendants make four arguments. (Dkt. No. 18, at 3-16 [Defs.' Opp'n Mem. of Law].) First, Defendants argue that the Court must apply a stricter standard than usual when assessing whether Plaintiff is entitled to a preliminary injunction because Plaintiff is seeking a mandatory preliminary injunction in that such an injunction would grant essentially all the relief they seek and such action could not later be undone by a judgment in Defendants' favor. (Id. at 3.)

Second, Defendants argue that Plaintiff has failed to show either a clear or substantial likelihood of success on the merits of its claims involving the records of Incarcerated Individual A or a strong showing of irreparable harm with regard to those claims. (Id. at 4-9.) More specifically, Defendants argue that (a) Plaintiff has not provided any proof from someone with first-hand knowledge regarding its efforts to obtain the records of Incarcerated Individual A, (b) the records that Plaintiff now claims were improperly redacted were not the same ones that it physically inspected at Five Points Correctional Facility (“Five Points”), but rather were in response to a request for separate and unrelated records from Sullivan Correctional Facility (“Sullivan”), and Plaintiff has not provided copies of the relevant request for access or authorizations related to the records from Five Points, (c) there is no strong showing of irreparable harm because, even if the copies of records provided to Plaintiff were redacted, Plaintiff had physically reviewed unredacted versions of those records and thus the failure here was not one of “access” to records (as required by the governing statutes and regulations) but rather a failure to deliver unredacted copies of records that Plaintiff had already accessed, and (d) the fact that Plaintiff waited nearly a year after receiving Incarcerated Individual A's request for legal assistance before making a request of Defendants undermines Plaintiff's argument that it urgently needs the records of Individual A. (Id.)

Third Defendants argue that Plaintiff has failed to show either a clear and substantial likelihood of success on the merits of its...