Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Wright v. New York State Department of Corrections and Community Supervision

United States District Court, N.D. New York

February 10, 2017

NATHANIEL WRIGHT, Plaintiff,
v.
NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND COMMUNITY SUPERVISION; ANTHONY ANNUCCI, Acting Commission of DOCCS; and SUPERINTENDENT DARWIN LACLAIR, Franklin Correctional Facility, Defendants.

         APPEARANCES:

          LEGAL SERVICES OF CENTRAL SAMUEL C. YOUNG, ESQ. NEW YORK - SYRACUSE, Attorneys for Plaintiff

          OFFICE OF THE NEW YORK JOSHUA E. MCMAHON, ESQ. STATE ATTORNEY GENERAL, Attorneys for Defendants

         OF COUNSEL:

          SAMUEL C. YOUNG, ESQ. JOSHUA T. COTTER, ESQ.

          JOSHUA E. MCMAHON, ESQ.

          MEMORANDUM-DECISION AND ORDER

          Mae A. D'Agoatino U.S. District Judge

         INTRODUCTION

         The bench trial of this action is scheduled to commence on February 13, 2017. Presently before the Court is plaintiff's motion for an order compelling defendants to produce twelve documents/emails that were referenced during the depositions of Gary Waldron and David Infantino.[1]

         DISCUSSION

         Defendants object to the production of the emails and assert the following reasons for withholding the copies: (1) unresponsive to Magistrate Judge's Text Order[2]; (2) protected by the "deliberate process privilege;" (3) attorney work product privilege; and (4) attorney client privilege.

         Deliberate Process

         "[T]he deliberative process privilege [is] a sub-species of work-product privilege that covers documents reflecting advisory opinions, recommendations and deliberations comprising part of a process by which governmental decisions and policies are formulated." See Nat'l Council of La Raza v. Dep't of Justice, 411 F.3d 350, 356 (2d Cir. 2005) (internal quotation marks omitted)). In order for the privilege to apply, a document must be either intra- or inter-agency, predecisional, and deliberative. See Tigue v. U.S. Dep't of Justice, 312 F.3d 70, 76 (2d Cir. 2002). To be "predecisional, a document must be prepared to “assist an agency decisionmaker in arriving at his decision." Fox News Network, LLC v. U.S. Dep't of the Treasury, 678 F.Supp.2d 162, 167 (S.D.N.Y. 2009) (citation omitted). To be deliberative, a document must actually be "related to the process by which policies are formulated." Id. at 168. The privilege may not be applicable in cases where the decision making process itself is the central issue in the action, i.e., a civil rights action. See Burbar v. Inc. Vill. of Garden City, 303 F.R.D. 9, 13 (E.D.N.Y. 2014) (refusing to apply privilege in an action for malicious prosecution and abuse of process as the intent and decision making process of the county defendants was "unquestionably at the heart of the[] claims") (citations omitted). The privilege is a qualified privilege, which may be overcome when a litigant's need for information outweighs the public's interest in its nondisclosure. See Houser v. Blank, No. 10 CIV. 3105, 2013 WL 873793, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 11, 2013).

         "The claim of deliberative-process privilege must be lodged by the head of the agency after personal consideration of the allegedly privileged material or by a subordinate with high authority pursuant to guidelines on the use of the privilege issued by the head of the agency." In re Methyl Tertiary Butyl Ether (MTBE) Prod. Liab. Litig., 643 F.Supp.2d 439, 443 (S.D.N.Y. 2009). The assertion of this ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.