Second Circuit Affirms Exclusion of NYCLU from Disclosure Prohibition under FOIL and Rule 65(d)(2)

Second Circuit Affirms Exclusion of NYCLU from Disclosure Prohibition under FOIL and Rule 65(d)(2)

Introduction

In the case of Uniformed Fire Officers Association et al. v. Bill de Blasio, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit addressed a significant legal dispute involving the New York Civil Liberties Union (NYCLU) and its access to police misconduct records. The plaintiffs, representing various uniformed officers, sought to prevent the NYCLU from disclosing disciplinary records of approximately 81,000 New York City police officers, asserting that such disclosures violated collective bargaining agreements and potentially exposed officers to unfair public scrutiny.

The central issue revolved around whether the District Court had the authority under Rule 65(d)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure to extend a temporary restraining order (TRO) prohibiting the NYCLU from disclosing certain records. The Second Circuit's judgment clarified the scope of Rule 65(d)(2) and its applicability to non-parties involved in the dissemination of public records.

Summary of the Judgment

The plaintiffs, representing various uniformed departments, filed a petition in the New York Supreme Court seeking an injunction to prevent the public disclosure of what they termed "Unsubstantiated and Non-Final Allegations" against officers. Following an initial TRO issued by Justice Carol R. Edmead, the case was removed to the Southern District of New York. The District Court, presided over by Judge Katherine Polk Failla, initially extended the TRO to include the NYCLU, prohibiting it from disclosing the disciplinary records obtained through a Freedom of Information Law (FOIL) request.

However, upon further consideration, Judge Failla modified the order to exclude the NYCLU from the disclosure prohibition, determining that the NYCLU was not acting "in active concert or participation" with the defendants. The plaintiffs appealed this modification and sought a stay pending their appeal. The Second Circuit reviewed the motion and ultimately denied the stay, affirming the District Court's decision to exclude the NYCLU from the TRO.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

The Court extensively referenced several key precedents to support its decision:

  • SWEDE v. ROCHESTER CARPENTERS PENSION FUND: Established the necessity for appellate courts to confirm they have jurisdiction.
  • COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING COMMISSION v. WALSH: Clarified that TRO denials are typically not appealable.
  • Granny Goose Foods, Inc. v. Brotherhood of Teamsters and Auto Truck Drivers Local No. 70: Provided guidelines on how TROs behave post-removal to federal court.
  • Nken v. Holder: Outlined the factors for granting a stay pending appeal, emphasizing the need for a strong showing of likely success on the merits.
  • Huminski v. Rutland City Police Dep't, Romer v. Green Point Savings Bank: Discussed the classification of restraining orders for appellate purposes.
  • NML Capital, Ltd. v. Republic of Argentina: Addressed the conditions under which non-parties are bound by injunctions.

Legal Reasoning

The Court's legal reasoning centered on the proper application of Rule 65(d)(2) and whether the NYCLU could be considered as acting "in active concert or participation" with the defendants bound by the TRO. The key points in the reasoning included:

  • Non-Party Status of NYCLU: The NYCLU was not a party to the original lawsuit and had lawfully obtained the records prior to any injunction, thus lacking any association that would render it in "active concert" with the defendants.
  • Timing of Disclosure: The NYCLU accessed and began preparing the records for public dissemination before the TRO was issued, negating any premeditated intent to violate the upcoming restraining order.
  • Rule 65(d)(2) Interpretation: The Court interpreted Rule 65(d)(2) strictly, holding that only those who receive actual notice of the TRO are bound by it. Since the NYCLU was unaware of the TRO at the time of their disclosures, they could not be implicated under this rule.
  • Appellate Jurisdiction: The Court determined that the July 29 order could be classified as a denial of a preliminary injunction due to the potential for irreparable harm, thus making it appealable and justifying the consideration of a stay.
  • Factors for Denying Stay: The plaintiffs failed to demonstrate a likelihood of success on the merits. Additionally, there was no evidence of irreparable harm to the NYCLU from the denial of the stay, further weakening the plaintiffs' position.

Impact

This judgment has several notable implications:

  • Clarification of Rule 65(d)(2): The decision provides a clear interpretation of Rule 65(d)(2), emphasizing that non-parties must receive actual notice to be bound by TROs or injunctions.
  • Protection for Non-Parties: Organizations like the NYCLU can seek public records without fear of being inadvertently bound by restraining orders targeting other parties, provided they were not in concert with those parties.
  • FOIL Requests and Public Disclosure: The ruling supports the transparency objectives of laws like FOIL, ensuring that lawful requests for public records are not unduly hindered by restraining orders aimed at specific entities.
  • Judicial Efficiency: By denying the stay, the Court reinforces the necessity for plaintiffs to secure injunctions directly within federal jurisdiction to have broader applicability, rather than relying on state court orders.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Rule 65(d)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure

Rule 65(d)(2) governs the applicability of restraining orders and injunctions to non-parties. It stipulates that non-parties can be bound by such orders only if they are "in active concert or participation" with the parties to the injunction. This means that if a non-party is working in collaboration with a party bound by a restraining order, they may also be required to comply with the order.

Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) vs. Preliminary Injunction

A Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) is a short-term measure issued to preserve the status quo until a more formal hearing can be held. In contrast, a Preliminary Injunction is a longer-term order that remains in effect until the case is resolved. The classification of these orders affects their appealability and the conditions under which they can be modified or enforced against non-parties.

Active Concert or Participation

Acting "in active concert or participation" refers to a collaborative relationship between parties where they work together towards a common goal. In the context of Rule 65(d)(2), if a non-party is found to be actively assisting or collaborating with a party to an injunction, they may be subject to compliance with the restraining order.

Freedom of Information Law (FOIL)

FOIL provides public access to records and information held by government agencies. In this case, the NYCLU exercised its FOIL rights to obtain disciplinary records of police officers, aiming to promote transparency and accountability within the police force.

Conclusion

The Second Circuit's decision in Uniformed Fire Officers Association et al. v. Bill de Blasio underscores the judiciary's role in precisely delineating the boundaries of restraining orders and their applicability to non-parties. By affirming the exclusion of the NYCLU from the disclosure prohibition, the Court reinforced the protections afforded to organizations acting independently and lawfully under FOIL. This judgment not only clarifies the interpretation of Rule 65(d)(2) but also fortifies the principles of transparency and accountability within public institutions. Consequently, this decision holds significant weight for future cases involving the disclosure of public records and the scope of judicial orders impacting non-parties.

The ruling ensures that non-parties, who lawfully seek public information without any collaborative intent with parties subject to restraining orders, are not unjustly impeded. This balance between protecting individuals' reputations and upholding public interest in transparency is pivotal in maintaining trust and integrity within public service sectors.

Case Details

UNIFORMED FIRE OFFICERS ASSOCIATION, UNIFORMED FIREFIGHTERS ASSOCIATION OF GREATER NEW YORK, POLICE BENEVOLENT ASSOCIATION OF THE CITY OF NEW YORK, INC., CORRECTION OFFICERS' BENEVOLENT ASSOCIATION OF THE CITY OF NEW YORK, INC., SERGEANTS BENEVOLENT ASSOCIATION, LIEUTENANTS BENEVOLENT ASSOCIATION, CAPTAINS ENDOWMENT ASSOCIATION, DETECTIVES' ENDOWMENT ASSOCIATION, Plaintiffs - Appellants, v. BILL DE BLASIO, IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS MAYOR OF THE CITY OF NEW YORK, CITY OF NEW YORK, NEW YORK CITY FIRE DEPARTMENT, DANIEL A. NIGRO, IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS THE COMMISSIONER OF THE FIRE DEPARTMENT OF THE CITY OF NEW YORK, NEW YORK CITY DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, CYNTHIA BRANN, IN HER OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS THE COMMISSIONER OF THE NEW YORK CITY DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, DERMOT F. SHEA, IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS THE COMMISSIONER OF THE NEW YORK CITY POLICE DEPARTMENT, NEW YORK CITY POLICE DEPARTMENT, FREDERICK DAVIE, IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS THE CHAIR OF THE CIVILIAN COMPLAINT REVIEW BOARD, CIVILIAN COMPLAINT REVIEW BOARD, Defendants - Appellees, NEW YORK CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION, Nonparty - Appellee, THE NEW YORK TIMES COMPANY, Inter
Year: 2020
Court: UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT

Judge(s)

JON O. NEWMAN, Circuit Judge

Attorney(S)

Courtney G. Saleski, Philadelphia, PA (Anthony P. Coles, New York, NY), DLA Piper LLP, for Plaintiffs-Appellants Uniformed Fire Officers Association, Uniformed Firefighters Association of Greater New York, Police Benevolent Association of the City of New York, Inc., Correction Officers' Benevolent Association of the City of New York, Inc., Sergeants Benevolent Association, Lieutenants Benevolent Association, Captains Endowment Association, Detectives' Endowment Association. Molly K. Biklen, New York, NY (Christopher Dunn, Jordan Laris Cohen, New York, NY), New York Civil Liberties Union Foundation, for Nonparty-Appellee New York Civil Liberties Union. Elina Druker, Asst. Corp. Counsel, New York, NY (James E. Johnson, Corp. Counsel of the City of New York, Richard Dearing, Scott Shorr, Assts. Corp. Counsel, New York, NY), for Defendants-Appellees Bill de Blasio, City of New York, New York City Fire Department, Daniel A. Nigro, New York City Department of Corrections, Cynthia Brann, Dermot F. Shea, New York City Police Department, Frederick Davie, and Civilian Complaint Review Board. Alexandra Perloff-Giles, New York, NY (David E. McCraw, Al-Amyn Sumar, New York, NY), The New York Times Company, for Intervenor The New York Times Company. (Corey Stoughton, The Legal Aid Society, New York, NY, Roger A. Cooper, Joseph M. Kay, Ye Eun Charlotte Chun, Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton LLP, New York, NY, for amicus curiae The Legal Aid Society, in support of Nonparty-Appellee New York Civil Liberties Union.) (Katie Townsend, Bruce D. Brown, The Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, Washington, DC, for amici curiae The Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press and 32 News Media Organizations, in support of Defendants-Appellees and Nonparty-Appellee New York Civil Liberties Union.)

Comments