Matthews v. N.Y. State Dep't of Corrs.

1

LUKE MATTHEWS, CARLOS GOMEZ, GENTL BONDS, ROBERT SMITH, and KASIEM CHAVES, Plaintiffs,^[1] v. NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND COMMUNITY SUPERVISION “DOCCS”; CLINTON CORRECTIONS SERGEANT SWEENEY; CLINTON CORRECTIONS SERGEANT GUYNUP; CORRECTIONAL EMERGENCY RESPONSE TEAM “CERT” OFFICER 44-29; CERT OFFICER 44-23; CERT OFFICER 44-5; CERT OFFICER 44-4; and CERT OFFICER 44-3, Defendants

No. 9:17-cv-503

United States District Court, N.D. New York

March 28, 2023

DECISION & ORDER

THOMAS J. McAVOY, Senior United States District Judge

I. INTRODUCTION

Plaintiffs Luke Matthews, Carlos Gomez, Gentl Bonds, Robert Smith, and Kasiem Chaves were at pertinent times prisoners under the custody of the New York State Department of Corrections and Community Supervision ("DOCCS"). Their claims stem from incidents that occurred after DOCCS officials learned on June 6, 2015 that Inmates Richard Matt and David Sweat escaped from the Clinton Correctional Facility ("Clinton"). At the time of the escape, Plaintiffs were incarcerated at Clinton. Following the escape Plaintiffs and other prisoners were interviewed by various DOCCS officials regarding the escape, and Plaintiffs and other prisoners were then transferred to Upstate Correctional Facility ("Upstate"). Plaintiffs' remaining claims arise in connection with Defendants' alleged actions or inactions during these interviews and their transfers to Upstate. As explained below, Plaintiffs' transfers to Upstate were effectuated by DOCCS Correction Emergency Response Team (“CERT”) officers from Eastern Correctional Facility through a procedure referred to as a draft. See Pl. Exh. 9, 44-3 Dep. at 22:12-14.

Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment seeking to dismiss this action in its entirety. See Dkt. No. 308. Plaintiffs filed a “Motion for Leave to File Redacted Copies of Documents and Declassify Documents Marked ‘Confidential' and ‘Attorney's Eyes Only'” (“Motion to Seal and Declassify Documents”), see Dkt. Nos. 318, 318-1, 318-2, opposition to Defendants' summary judgment motion, and a cross-motion seeking spoliation sanctions. See Dkt. No. 318-4 (“Combined Memorandum of Law”). Defendants filed a response to Plaintiffs' Motion to Seal and Declassify Documents, Dkt. No. 323, and a memorandum of law in opposition to Plaintiffs' cross-motion for spoliation sanctions and in further support of their summary judgment motion. Dkt. No. 326. Plaintiffs filed a reply memorandum of law in further support of their cross-motion for spoliation sanctions. Dkt. No. 328. The Court addresses the pending motions below.

II. PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

The Court presumes familiarity with the procedural history of this case. Suffice it to say that after extensive motion practice, the Third Amended Complaint (“TAC”) is the operative pleading. See Dkt. No. 298. The remaining claims are Plaintiffs' Section 1983 claims asserting Eighth Amendment excessive force and failure to intervene, Plaintiff Smith's Fourteenth Amendment claim asserting a violation of equal protection, see TAC §§ 198-203, and Plaintiff Smith's claim pursuant to Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 against DOCCS asserting that officers' actions were motivated by racial animus and intended to discriminate based on race. See id. at ¶¶ 204-206.

III. DISCUSSION

a. Plaintiffs' Motion to Seal and Declassify Documents

The parties entered into a protective order on April 24, 2018 that was so-ordered by the Court. Dkt. No. 61. The protective order deals with the disclosure of material designated as "CONFIDENTIAL/ ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY” that “counsel believes in good faith consists of (1) personnel or employment records; (2) medical information which is protected from disclosure by statute; or (3) information that could jeopardize institutional or inmate safety and security.” Id., ¶ 2; see id. ¶ 9.^[2] Paragraph 13 provides that the Court “retains discretion whether to afford confidential treatment to any confidential document or information contained in any confidential document submitted to the Court in connection with any motion, application, or proceeding that may result in an order or decision by the Court.” Id. ¶ 13.

By order dated October 19, 2018, the CERT defendants were granted permission to proceed in this action using their badge numbers rather than their real names. Dkt. No. 138. In reaching this conclusion, Magistrate Judge Peebles examined the ten, nonexhaustive factors set forth in Sealed Plaintiff v. Sealed Defendant, 537 F.3d 185, 190 (2d Cir. 2008) and found that the factors weighed in favor of permitting the CERT defendants to proceed accordingly. See id. at 6-18.^[3]

Defendants represent that after prolonged and contentious discovery before Magistrate Judge Lovric, Defendants disclosed at least 5,893 bates-numbered pages of documents, many of them disclosed under the protective order. Dkt. No. 323 at 2. Defendants assert that when they filed their summary judgment motion, they filed exhibits under seal using the “Medical Records Filed” feature available on the Court's case management and electronic case files system (CM/ECF) to comply with the protective order. Id. Plaintiffs seek permission to file documents related to their crossmotion for spoliation sanctions and in opposition to Defendants' summary judgment motion redacted in whole or in part, and to modify (or “declassify”) certain portions of documents otherwise covered by the protective order, the order allowing the CERT defendants to proceed using only their badge numbers, or impacting third-party privacy concerns. See Dkt. No. 318-2 (“Exhibit B to Plaintiffs' Motion to Seal and/or Declassify”).

Analysis

“The ‘notion that the public should have access to the proceedings and documents of courts is integral to our system of government.'” United States v. Cohen 366 F.Supp.3d 612, 618 (S.D.N.Y. 2019) (quoting United States v. Erie County, 763 F.3d 235, 238-39 (2d Cir. 2014)). “Accordingly, there is a presumptive right of access to judicial documents rooted in both common law and the First Amendment.” In re Search Warrant Dated Nov. 5, 2021, No. 21-MISC-813 (ATSLC), 2021 WL 5830728, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 7, 2021)(citing Erie County, 763 F.3d at 238-39).

Under Second Circuit precedent, documents may be sealed in whole or in part where it “is essential to preserve higher values and is narrowly tailored to serve that interest.” Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga, 435 F.3d 110, 120 (2d Cir. 2006) (quoting In re New York Times Co., 828 F.2d 110, 116 (2d Cir. 1987)). The “decision as to access is one best left to the sound discretion of the trial court, a discretion to be exercised in light of the relevant facts and circumstances of the particular case.” Nixon v. Warner Commc'ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 599 (1978).

Within the Second Circuit, courts follow a three-step process for determining whether documents should be sealed in whole or in part. First, the Court must determine whether the item at issue is a “judicial document,” that is, whether the item is “‘relevant to the performance of the judicial function and useful in the judicial process.'” Lugosch, 435 F.3d at 119 (quoting United States v. Amodeo, 44 F.3d 141, 145 (2d Cir. 1995) (“Amodeo I”)). Second, the Court “must determine the weight of that presumption [of access],” which is “governed by the role of the material at issue in the exercise of Article III judicial power and the resultant value of such information to those monitoring the federal courts.” Id. at 119. Third, the Court must “balance competing considerations against” the weight of the presumption. Id. at 120.

Id.

All documents addressed by Plaintiffs' Motion to Seal and Declassify Documents are submitted in opposition to Defendants' motion for summary judgment, or in support of Plaintiffs' cross-motion for spoliation sanctions. “[D]ocuments submitted to a court for its consideration in a summary judgment motion are - as a matter of law - judicial documents to which a strong presumption of access attaches, under both the common law and the First Amendment.” Lugosch, 435 F.3d at 121. The same conclusion applies to documents submitted in connection with Plaintiffs' motion for spoliation sanctions. These documents are relevant to the performance of the judicial function and useful in the judicial process. Thus, all documents addressed in Plaintiffs' Motion to Seal and Declassify Documents are judicial documents to which the presumption of public access applies.

“The general and deeply rooted rule is that the presumptive right of access is afforded ‘strong weight' when applied to documents that play a central role in ‘determining litigants' substantive rights-conduct at the heart of Article III.'” Mirlis v. Greer, 952 F.3d 51, 60 (2d Cir. 2020) (quoting United States v. Amodeo, 71 F.3d 1044, 1049 (2d Cir. 1995) (“Amodeo II”)). “Summary judgment filings should not remain under seal ‘absent the most compelling reason' or ‘absent exceptional circumstances' because the act of formal adjudication should be subject to public scrutiny.” Monahan v. City of New York, No. 20-CV-2610 (PKC), 2022 WL 993571, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 30, 2022)(quoting Lugosch, 435 F.3d at 121). The same conclusion is reached for the filings made in connection with Plaintiffs' motion for spoilation sanctions.

Next the Court must identify and weigh factors “that legitimately counsel” against public access. Mirlis, 952 F.3d at 59. “Sealing or redaction is warranted if the privacy interests of the party resisting disclosure outweigh the presumption of access.” Monahan, 2022 WL 993571, at *1 (citing Mirlis, 952 F.3d at 59); see In re Search Warrant Dated Nov. 5, 2021, 2021 WL 5830728, at *4 (“In the third step, a court ‘must balance competing considerations' against the presumption...