Morales v. United States of America

• Court: District Court, E.D. New York
• Decided: October 1, 2021
• Docket: 1:18-cv-04247
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK _____________________

No 18-CV-4247 (CBA) (RER) _____________________

JUAN MORALES,

Plaintiff,

VERSUS

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ET AL.,

Defendants. ____________________________

Supplemental Memorandum & Order

October 1, 2021 __________________________

Ramon E. Reyes, Jr., U.S.M.J.: question and their continued confidential The Honorable Carol B. Amon remanded treatment under the protective order. to me plaintiff Juan Morales’ (“Morales”) motion to compel (Dkt. No. 34) “to assess When a confidential designation of a non- whether Defendants have proven . . . that the judicial document is challenged, the party challenged confidentiality designations are in designating the documents as confidential accordance with the law” (Dkt. No. 55 must show “good cause” for the continued (“Order”) at 8). confidential treatment. E.g., U2 Home Entm't, Inc. v. Kylin TV, Inc ., No. 06–CV– After further review, and consistent with 2770 (DLI), 2008 WL 1771913, at *2 the initial ruling on Morales’ motion (Dkt. (E.D.N.Y. Apr.15, 2008) (where “the No. 42 (“Discovery Order”)), I find that the confidentiality designation is contested, the Defendants have sustained their burden to party seeking to maintain confidential establish the propriety of the confidential treatment for the challenged document will designation for all of the documents in have the burden of establishing good cause for the continuation of that treatment”).1

1 Because the documents at issue are discovery confidential treatment. Dorsett, 762 F.Supp.2d at 519 documents, and not judicial documents, the Court need (“good cause determination [] requires the movant not engage in balancing the public interest in when dealing with a non-judicial document to make disclosure with the Defendants’ interest in continued only a ‘baseline showing of good cause in order to “Ordinarily, good cause exists when a party 14)). The LEP designations and assertions of shows that disclosure will result in a clearly specific harms that may result upon defined, specific and serious injury.” In re disclosure apply to the documents as a whole, Terrorist Attacks on Sept. 11, 2001, 454 F. and not just to the redacted information.2 In Supp. 2d 220, 222 (S.D.N.Y. 2006) (internal that regard, Defendants satisfied their burden quotations and citation omitted). with the filing of their opposition to Morales’ motion to compel, a finding that is at least As explained in the Discovery Order, implicit in the Discovery Order. Defendants designated the documents as confidential pursuant to the law enforcement In any event, I have carefully re-reviewed privilege (“LEP”). (Discovery Order at 1.) A the declarations and each of the documents in party asserting the LEP “bears the burden of question, and agree that the documents are showing that the privilege applies to the entitled to LEP protection. And, while documents in question.” In re City of New Morales may disagree, Defendants have York, 607 F.3d 923, 944 (2d Cir. 2010). This made the necessary minimal showing of is accomplished by demonstrating “that the possible harm that may result should the documents contain information that the law documents be disclosed publicly. E.g., enforcement privilege is intended to protect.” Byrnes, 2000 WL 60221, at *6 (noting that Id. “defendant offers a very thin and speculative basis for sealing, but, absent any presumption As the Discovery Order notes, along with against sealing, it should suffice for the their opposition to Morales’ motion limited purpose of protecting discovery Defendants submitted two declarations materials as such.”). There is good cause for which describe “the origins of the specific the continued confidential treatment of the documents at issue and why they are covered documents in question. by the LEP, and the ‘specific harms’ that may ensue should the protections of the LEP be Finally, as explained in the Discovery removed.” (Discovery Order at 2; see also Order (Discovery Order at 4), Morales has Dkt. No 44 at ¶¶ 6-25; Dkt. No. 45 at ¶¶ 4- failed to overcome the presumption against

justify the imposition of a protective order.’ Therefore, disclosure of this information would be contrary to the . . . ‘there is no presumption against sealing, and thus public interest, because it would reveal CBP's even a minimal showing of possible harm from confidential law enforcement techniques, methods and disclosure should trigger a sealing order…’” (quoting procedures, as further discussed below.” (emphasis Standard Inv. Chartered, Inc. v. Nat'l Ass'n of Sec. added)) and ¶ 25 (“stripping the ‘confidential’ Dealers, Inc., 621 F.Supp.2d 55, 62 (S.D.N.Y. 2007) designation of these documents and/or the disclosure and Byrnes v. Blue Cross Blue Shield, No. 98 Civ. of the withheld and redacted information discussed 8520, 2000 WL 60221, at *6 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 25, 2000), herein would allow potential violators to discover or respectively)). circumvent CBP law enforcement techniques and endanger CBP operations and personnel at ports-of- 2 See, e.g., Dkt. No. 44 at ¶ 6 (“I have personally entry. Specifically, the disclosure of these techniques reviewed the records and information that were would enable potential violators to evade CBP marked as confidential as well as the documents inspection processes, possibly introducing contraband containing redactions. I am making this Declaration into the United States and/or otherwise evading for the purpose of asserting the law enforcement customs laws, and place CBP officers and the public privilege with respect to documents that were in harm's way. The disclosure of the withheld identified in the government' s privilege log and information would also jeopardize the overall specifically with respect to the documents mentioned effectiveness of CBP and third-party investigations. by the Plaintiff in his Motion to Compel. For the (emphasis added)). reasons set forth below, I have determined that disclosure of the LEP-protected documents. He has failed to establish a “compelling need” for the protected information. In re City of N.Y., 607 F.3d at 945.

Accordingly, Morales’ motion to strip the documents of their confidential designation is denied.

SO ORDERED

/s/ Ramon E. Reyes, Jr. RAMON E. REYES, JR. United States Magistrate Judge