Opinion
8443N Index 24128/15E
03-14-2019
David HILL, et al., Plaintiffs–Respondents, v. CITY OF NEW YORK, et al., Defendants–Appellants.
Zachary W. Carter, Corporation Counsel, New York (Elina Druker of counsel), for appellants. Pollack, Pollack, Isaac & DeCicco LLP, New York (Jillian Rosen of counsel), for respondents.
Zachary W. Carter, Corporation Counsel, New York (Elina Druker of counsel), for appellants.
Pollack, Pollack, Isaac & DeCicco LLP, New York (Jillian Rosen of counsel), for respondents.
Richter, J.P., Manzanet–Daniels, Kapnick, Gesmer, Oing, JJ.
Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Mitchell J. Danziger, J.), entered on or about August 14, 2017, which denied defendants' motion for a protective order preventing disclosure of a confidential informant's personal identifying information, including the dates, times and amounts of the controlled buys leading up to a search warrant, unanimously reversed, on the law and in the exercise of discretion, without costs, and the motion for a protective order granted.
The court's denial of a protective order was an improvident exercise of discretion. Defendants showed that the redactions to the police paperwork were necessary to protect the identity of a confidential informant, and plaintiff failed to show that he has a compelling interest in the information that would outweigh defendants' interest in nondisclosure (see generally Aguilar v. Immigration & Customs Enforcement Div., 259 F.R.D. 51, 56–58 [S.D. N.Y.2009] ; see also Matter of the City of New York, 607 F.3d 923, 941 [2d Cir.2010] ). The court's direction that disclosure be made on an attorneys'-eyes-only basis was not sufficiently protective of the confidential informant's identity. In all likelihood, the information at issue would aid plaintiff's case only if the attorney were to discuss it with plaintiff or others, which could endanger the informant's safety.