Opinion
15-cv-05236 (LTS) (KHP)
08-15-2019
SHAUNA NOEL, et al Plaintiffs, v. CITY OF NEW YORK, Defendant.
OPINION AND ORDER KATHARINE H. PARKER, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE :
Plaintiffs commenced this action to challenge a New York City policy regarding affordable housing lotteries. The City's policy allocates 50% of units in affordable housing lotteries to individuals who already reside in the community district where the new affordable housing units are located. This policy is referred to herein as the "Community Preference Policy." Plaintiffs allege that the Community Preference Policy violates the federal Fair Housing Act ("FHA"), 42 U.S.C. § 3604 et seq., and the New York City Human Rights Law ("NYCHRL"), N.Y.C. Admin. Code § 8-107 et seq., because it perpetuates racial segregation and disparately impacts racial minorities. They also claim that the City's decision to establish, expand, and maintain the policy constitutes intentional discrimination.
Currently pending before this Court is Plaintiffs' motion challenging privilege designations on 350 documents in the City's privilege log. (ECF Nos. 729, 747.) The City asserts that the documents are protected from disclosure based on one or more of the following reasons: (1) attorney-client privilege, (2) work product protection, (3) deliberative process privilege, and (4) legislative privilege. This Court assumes the reader's familiarity with the factual background of this case based on its many decisions in this action and does not repeat it here. See, e.g., Winfield v. City of New York, No. 15-cv-5236 (LTS) (KHP), 2017 WL 5664852, at *1-6 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 27, 2017); Winfield v. City of New York, No. 15-cv-5236 (LTS) (KHP), 2017 WL 2880556, at *1-2 (S.D.N.Y. July 5, 2017), aff'd, 2017 WL 5054727, at *1-2 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 2, 2017); Winfield v. City of New York, No. 15-cv-5236 (LTS) (DCF), 2016 WL 6208564, at *1-3 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 24, 2016).
The City submitted for in camera review a detailed privilege log with hyperlinks to all 350 documents and, in some cases, cover emails for the documents providing greater context for the creation and purpose of the communication and the basis for the privilege assertion. The City also submitted declarations from Leila Bozorg, Deputy Commissioner of the New York City Department of Housing Preservation and Development ("HPD"), and Eric Enderlin, current Commissioner of HPD, providing greater detail as to the basis for the assertion of privilege as to certain documents and categories of documents. Bozorg attests that she has reviewed the documents withheld on the basis of deliberative process privilege and that they involve pre-decisional deliberations by officials at HPD and/or other City agencies. She attests that these documents reflect deliberations on the Housing New York Plan ("HNY"), which was publicly announced on May 5, 2014 and deliberations on updates to the plan, announced as HNY 2.0 in November 2017. Other documents reflect deliberations on Mandatory Inclusionary Housing ("MIH"), which was an amendment to the City zoning law. The MIH application submitted by the administration was completed on September 21, 2105 and ultimately approved by the City Planning Commission on February 3, 2016 and the City Council on March 22, 2016. Some of the documents relate to deliberations on changes to the so-called 421-a homeless preference policy, which was announced on October 14, 2016, and the "Where We Live NYC" plan ("WWL"), which is a planning process that the City is using to better understand how challenges like segregation and discrimination impact New Yorkers' lives and to identify ways to improve the City's fair housing policies. Other documents pertain to deliberations on various neighborhood plans for East New York ("ENY"), Jerome Avenue, Inwood, East Harlem, the Bay Street Corridor and the Far Rockaways. Final versions of the above-described housing policies are publicly available, as is documentation about public review and zoning amendment processes. Additionally, Plaintiffs' counsel, the Antidiscrimination Center, was invited to stakeholder meetings and is thus independently knowledgeable about the WWL planning process.
The ENY plan was finalized April 20, 2016 after the City Council approved zoning changes. The Jerome Avenue plan was finalized on March 22, 2018 after the City Council approved zoning changes. The Inwood plan was finalized on August 8, 2018 after City Council approved it. The East Harlem plan was approved by the City Council on Novmeber 30, 2017. The Bay Street Corridor plan, which includes zoning changes, is currently in the public review process and not yet final. HPD was involved in developing the plan's and putting them forth for public review and City Council vote on necessary zoning changes. Thus, the initial proposals were developed before the City Council votes and in some cases there were deliberations on changes to the plans after the public review period and before the zoning votes. However, contrary to what the City has suggested, deliberations post-announcement of the policy and pre-City Counsel approval are not necessarily protected. The Court has been mindful of the various dates applicable to identified policies when evaluating whether a document is pre- or post-decisional.
This Court does not repeat the legal standards for a claim of privilege, as those were previously set forth by this Court in earlier decisions. See ECF Nos. 259, 655. It has, however, reviewed each of the 350 documents consistent with these legal standards in determining whether the City has met its burden in demonstrating privilege. The Court also has been mindful that privileges must be construed narrowly insofar as they are contrary to the "search for truth." Kaufman v. City of New York, 98 Civ. 2648(MJL)(KNF), 1999 WL 239698, at *4 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 22, 1999). This is particularly important in civil rights cases such as this, where fundamental rights are at issue. King v. Conde, 121 F.R.D. 180, 195 (E.D.N.Y. 1988); Skibo v. City of New York, 109 F.R.D. 58, 61 (E.D.N.Y. 1985). A brief discussion of the Court's ruling is set forth below.
To the extent the City has suggested there is a presumption in favor of withholding deliberative documents or that the Plaintiffs have the burden to show why a document should be disclosed, the Court rejects these suggestions. It is well established that the party withholding a document has the burden of establishing a privilege attaches. Grossman v. Schwarz, 125 F.R.D. 376, 380 (S.D.N.Y. 1989).
I. Deliberative Process Privilege
The majority of the documents in the review set were withheld on the basis of deliberative process privilege. Under this privilege, the document must be pre-decisional and deliberative. Noel v. City of New York, 357 F. Supp. 3d 298, 303 (S.D.N.Y. 2019). To demonstrate the former, the City must point to a specific decision to which the communication correlates. Id. This does not mean, as Plaintiffs suggest, that current deliberations of a non-final policy are not subject to the privilege. General open-ended discussions would not be protected, but deliberations for the purpose of arriving at a specific policy or plan would be protected. Grand Cent. P'ship, Inc. v. Cuomo, 166 F.3d 473, 482 (2d Cir. 1999) ("[T]he privilege does not protect a document which is merely peripheral to actual policy formulation," and "the record must bear on the formulation or exercise of policy-oriented judgment." (quoting Ethyl Corp. v. U.S. E.P.A., 25 F.3d 1241, 1248 (4th Cir. 1994))). The Court has taken notice of the dates when certain policies were finalized versus when they were released for public comment and City Council vote in its evaluation of the documents and determination of whether a communication is pre-decisional. See supra, n.1.
Because factual information is not protected, the Court has ordered production of some documents on the log in redacted form where appropriate. Noel v. City of New York, 15-cv-5236(LTS) (KHP), 2018 WL 6649969, at *4 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 18, 2018). Likewise, post-decisional explanations and implementation of policies are not protected by the privilege. Davis v. City of New York, No. 10 CIV. 0699 SAS, 2011 WL 1742748, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. May 5, 2011) (noting that the privilege "does not extend to materials related to the explanation, interpretation or application of an existing policy, as opposed to formulation of a new policy" (quoting Resolution Trust Corp. v. Diamond, 137 F.R.D. 634, 641 (S.D.N.Y.1991))). Nor are communications reflecting routine self-evaluation of a policy protected. Noel, 2018 WL 6649969, at *4; Marisol A. v. Giuliani, No. 95 CIV. 10533 (RJW), 1998 WL 132810, at *6 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 23, 1998). Accordingly, the Court has declined to find privilege as to some of the documents on the City's log for these reasons.
Where the Court has found that deliberative process privilege does apply, it has applied the balancing test set forth in Rodriguez v. Pataki in the manner prescribed by Judge Swain. 280 F. Supp. 2d 89 (S.D.N.Y.), aff'd, 293 F. Supp. 2d 302 (S.D.N.Y. 2003). Specifically, this Court has construed relevance broadly for purposes of weighing the relevance factor, consistent with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(1) and Federal Rule of Evidence 401. Noel v. City of New York, No. 15-cv-5236-LTS-KHP, 2018 WL 6786238, at *4 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 12, 2018). In this regard, the Court has found documents pertaining not just to the Community Preference Policy, but pertaining to the City's knowledge of and responses to resistance to or fear of neighborhood racial change, knowledge of the nature of opposition to affordable housing development, discussions about methods for combatting displacement other than the Community Preference Policy, segregation within the City, and other topics to fall within the broad definition of relevance. The Court has considered communications with City Council members about neighborhood plans and affordable housing generally (and preparations for or reporting of same) to be relevant as well. In other words, the Court credits Plaintiff's argument that they must be able to probe circumstantial evidence of intentional discrimination and has found most of the documents on the City's log to be relevant even if they do not discuss the Community Preference Policy. The weight of the relevance factor in this Court's final balancing of the Rodriguez factors, however, varied from document to document.
As to the second Rodriguez factor, this Court took into consideration Plaintiffs' arguments about their access to documents and information. It also has considered Plaintiffs' contention that they need drafts of documents to ascertain options that were considered and rejected. For the most part, however, this Court found that the balance of Rodriguez factors did not warrant production of the drafts on the City's privilege log because of the weight given to the relevance of the particular changes between drafts and final documents in the balancing analysis, along with Plaintiffs' access to final versions of policies and other extensive discovery on the topics in the drafts and considerations informing final policies and plans.
Consistent with its prior decisions and reviews of documents in camera, the third and fourth Rodriguez factors - the seriousness of the issues involved and the role of the government in the litigation - weighed in favor of disclosure as to each document this Court reviewed and in the balancing analysis. In other words, these factors were additive in the Court's determination on disclosure.
Finally, this Court analyzed each Rodriguez factor separately in the first instance and then weighed them against the fifth factor- the potential chilling effect disclosure would have on government employees. Noel, 2018 WL 6786238, at *5. To the extent that the City has suggested that the fifth factor will nearly always outweigh the first four factors, the Court rejects this suggestion. Rather, the Court conducted a balancing analysis as to each document, and the fifth factor did not tip the scales against disclosure as to a fair number of the documents. Its rulings on the individual documents based on the above-described balancing process are reflected on Attachment A to this Opinion and Order.
II. Attorney-Client Privilege
The attorney-client privilege applies to: (1) a communication between government counsel and their clients, (2) that was intended to be and was in fact kept confidential, and (3) was made for the purpose of obtaining or providing legal advice. See In re Cty. of Erie, 473 F.3d 413, 419 (2d Cir. 2007) (internal citation omitted). As to factor 3, the key inquiry is whether the "predominant purpose" of the communication is to solicit or provide legal advice. Id. at 419-20 (collecting cases). When legal advice is the predominant purpose, "other 'considerations and caveats' are not severable and the entire communication is privileged." Fox News Network, LLC v. US Dep't of Treasury, 739 F. Supp. 2d 515, 560 (citing In re Cty. of Erie, 473 F.3d at 420). On the other hand, if the legal advice is merely "incidental to the nonlegal advice that is the predominant purpose of the communication," then the legal portions of the document may be redacted. In re Cty. of Erie, 473 F.3d at 420 n.8. For the most part, where asserted, the City demonstrated applicability of attorney-client privilege. As to these documents, the Court's review confirmed that they involve communications and draft documents exchanged between attorneys for the City and their clients for the predominant purpose of seeking or conveying legal advice. Where the privilege was not established, the Court notes this in Attachment A.
III. Work Product
The work product doctrine protects a broader category of documents and communications than the attorney-client privilege. Specifically, it protects documents and other tangible things "that are prepared in anticipation of litigation or for trial by or for another party or its representative." Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(3)(A); see also Bowne of N.Y.C., Inc. v. AmBase Corp., 150 F.R.D. 465, 471 (S.D.N.Y. 1993). "Where a document was created because of anticipated litigation, and would not have been prepared in substantially similar form but for the prospect of that litigation," it is protected as work product. United States v. Adlman, 134 F.3d 1194, 1195 (2d Cir. 1998). "Conversely, protection will be withheld from 'documents that are prepared in the ordinary course of business or that would have been created in essentially similar form irrespective of litigation.'" Schaeffler v. United States, 806 F.3d 34, 43 (2d Cir. 2015) (quoting Adlman, 134 F.3d at 1202). In those instances where the City established work product protection, this Court found that the document would not have been created in the same manner irrespective of anticipated or pending litigation.
The Court also considered, with respect to these documents, whether Plaintiffs have shown (1) substantial need for the material; and (2) an inability to obtain its substantial equivalent from another source without undue hardship. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(3)(A); Obeid v. Mack, No. 14-cv-6498 (LTS) (HBP), 2016 WL 7176653, at *5 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 9, 2016). Plaintiffs did not meet this showing as to any of the protected documents. First, the documents on the log related to the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development ("HUD") compliance review all involved discussions about possible changes to the Community Preference Policy to settle concerns HUD expressed. Plaintiffs have questioned or had an opportunity to question witnesses about alternatives to the olicy and potential changes to the policy considered and that could be considered. To the extent HPD Commissioners considered these changes outside of settlement discussions, Plaintiffs were permitted to question them on this topic. Thus, they have had a full opportunity in discovery to vet alternatives to the Community Preference Policy considered or that could have been considered by the City. Moreover, Plaintiffs have not persuasively articulated why they have a substantial need for these few communications. Plaintiffs likewise have not shown a substantial need for Housing Connect data analysis done in connection with this lawsuit. Plaintiffs have been provided the data themselves and information about non-privileged analyses conducted. They also have been permitted extensive discovery on the data.
IV. Legislative Privilege
The legislative privilege protects communications integral to a person's determination whether to vote for or against a proposal or law. See Eastland v. U.S. Servicemen's Fund, 421 U.S. 491, 504 (1975); Bogan v. Scott-Harris, 523 U.S. 44, 54-55 (1988). Examples include "delivering an opinion, uttering a speech, or haranguing in debate; proposing legislation; voting on legislation; making, publishing, presenting, and using legislative reports; authorizing investigations and issuing subpoenas; and holding hearings and introducing material at committee hearings." S.E.C. v. Comm. On Ways and Means of the U.S. House of Representatives, 161 F. Supp. 3d 199, 236 (S.D.N.Y. 2015) (citing Fields v. Office of Eddie Bernice Johnson, 459 F.3d 1, 10-11 (D.C. Cir. 2006)) (internal quotation marks omitted). The legislative privilege also protects formal and informal fact and information-gathering activities about the subject of potential legislation, as well as documents regarding or reflecting the fruits of this research. See id. at 236-37, 245; see also United States v. Biaggi, 853 F.2d 89, 102-03 (2d Cir. 1988); McSurely v. McClellan, 553 F.2d 1277, 1286 (D.C. Cir. 1976) (en banc), cert. dismissed, 438 U.S. 189 (1978). The privilege does not attach to activities concerning the administration of a law, speeches delivered outside of the legislative body and preparation for the same, the making of appointments with government agencies, and newsletters and press releases to constituents. See U.S. v. Brewster, 408 U.S. 501, 512 (1972); Hutchinson v. Proxmire, 443 U.S. 111, 130-33 (1979). Very few documents on the log were designated withheld under this privilege. In most instances where noted, this Court found that the City did not establish applicability of the privilege. In the few instances where this Court found the privilege might apply, it conducted the same Rodriguez balancing analysis described above in arriving at its rulings.
Conclusion
The Court appends a spreadsheet reflecting the Court's rulings on the 350 documents. The City is directed to re-review its privilege log consistent with this ruling and determine whether there are additional documents on its log that must be de-designated as privileged. The City shall complete this task by September 30 , 2019 and provide Plaintiffs with a supplemental production by that date.
To the extent there are objections to this ruling, or Plaintiffs believe that the Court should re-evaluate the balance of Rodriguez factors or wish to make a substantial need argument as to a specific document protected by the work product doctrine, this Court requests that the parties first file a motion for reconsideration with this Court. The parties shall notify the Court by letter if they intend to request reconsideration of a ruling as to a particular document by September 6 , 2019 . The Court will then set a briefing schedule as to any such motion. To the extent the City does not dispute this Court's ruling with respect to documents deemed non-privileged, it shall produce such documents by September 30 , 2019 .
SO ORDERED.
Dated: August 15, 2019
New York, New York
/s/_________
KATHARINE H. PARKER
United States Magistrate Judge
ATTACHMENT A
Sort Control ID Privilege Category Ruling 001 NYCPRIV00550 Deliberative NP; communication concerns explanation/application of policy and announcement of new policy re: AMI; not deliberative regarding new policy 002 NYCPRIV02116 Deliberative DPP; Rodriguez factors weigh in favor of disclosure; near final draft; contains description of planning policies in various neighborhoods; likely chilling effect does not outweigh other factors in favor of production 003 NYCPRIV05333 Attorney Client A/C; legal advice requested and conveyed 004 NYCPRIV00787 Work Product;Deliberative WP only on p. 1, item 2 - may redact parenthetical in title of 4th bullet and first sub-bullet to 4th bullet/redacted text would not have been created/aded to document but for anticipation of litigation; remainder of document not DPP because draft responses more akin to explanations of policies and not in aid of arriving at policy decision. 005 NYCPRIV00882 Deliberative Not DPP for the most part; this is an email preparing draft responses to a reporter's questions about the Flushing West project; first paragraph on top of p. 3 of email chain can be redacted because it reveals ongoing deliberative considerations for implementing MIH in neighborhood & balance of Rodriguez factors does not weigh in favor of unredacting 13 006 NYCPRIV05465 Deliberative DPP in part; text in emails between and among internal HPD personnel on pp. 1 and 2 may be redacted as DPP insofar as it reflecs deliberation on East NY plan which was not yet finalized; remainder of document not DPP because it includes member of The Coalition for Community Advancement; balance of Rodriguez factors does not weigh in favor of unredacting portion that is DPP 007 NYCPRIV04223 Deliberative DPP; preliminary discussions concerning position/policy regarding East Harlem and potential legislation to propose on relocation and reentry; balance of Rodriguez does not weigh in favor of disclosure except as to second to last sentence on last page of document that simply reports on an issue raised by community groups; sentence identified above should be produced with remainder of document redacted 14 008 NYCPRIV05559 Deliberative DPP in part; the emails on p. 1 and the first 2 emails on p. 2 should be produced as they are not DPP because it concerns scheduleing; the emails at the bottom of p. 5 to the end of the document between V. Lopez and J. Press should also be produced and are not DPP because it does not reflect internal policy deliberations; the remaining emails between and among HPD personnel is DPP because they reflect policy deliberations about new unit creation under IZ and funding ANCPs and can be redacted; balance of Rodriguez factors weighs against disclosure 009 NYCPRIV00734 Deliberative All but last 3 pages of document are DPP because they concern policy proposal and deliberative dscussion; balance of Rodriguez factors weighs against disclosure; produce last 3 pages and redact remainder 010 NYCPRIV05448 Deliberative Not DPP because does not reveal internal deliberations of administration about a policy 011 NYCPRIV04287 Deliberative DPP because reveals deliberations about features and costs of anti-harassment legal services and community outreach program; balance of Rodriguez factors weighs against disclosure 15 012 NYCPRIV01024 Deliberative DPP because reveals initial policy analysis and proposals for improvements to mobility counseling program; balance of Rodriguez factors weighs against disclosure 013 NYCPRIV04303 Deliberative Not DPP on top 4 emails in chain because it reveals existing policy; DPP applies to remainder of document because it discusses pending policy; however, balance of Rodriguez factors favors disclosure; whole document should be produced 014 NYCPRIV00185 Deliberative DPP because draft decision memo about considerations for making policy decision on homeless unit commitment; balance of Rodriguez factors weighs against disclosure 015 NYCPRIV01466 Deliberative DPP because emails constitute deliberations on possible policy changes as proposed by BBP; balance of Rodriguez factors weighs in favor of disclosure 016 NYCPRIV00192 Deliberative DPP because it is draft document of non- final policy; balance of Rodriguez factors weighs against disclosure 017 NYCPRIV01574 Deliberative DPP because reveals deliberations about policy positions to advocate at upcoming legislative session; balance of Rodriguez factors weighs against disclosure 16 018 NYCPRIV00214 Attorney Client;Deliberative Not DPP; except contains a paragraph protected by A/C on p. 6 where request for legal advice is discussed 019 NYCPRIV01739 Deliberative Not DPP; does not reveal internal deliberations about Inwood rezoning policy 020 NYCPRIV01068 Work Product WP b/c prepared in anticipation of HUD litigation and for settlement strategezation; no substantial need 021 NYCPRIV01099 Work Product;Deliberative WP b/c prepared in anticipation of HUD litigation and for settlement strategy; no substantial need; DPP b/c reveals deliberations about potential changes to CPP for purposes of settling with HUD 022 NYCPRIV01105 Work Product;Deliberative WP b/c prepared in anticipation of HUD litigation and for settlement strategy; no substantial need; DPP b/c reveals deliberations about potential changes to CPP for purposes of settling with HUD 023 NYCPRIV05518 Legislative;Deliberative top email DPP b/c reveals deliberations about position/policy on neighborhood preservation plan; blance of Rodriguez factors weighs against production; bottom emails in the chain are not DPP or LP; produce in redacted form 17 024 NYCPRIV04390 Deliberative DPP b/c reveals deliberations on policy regarding change to CPP; balance of Rodriguez factors weighs in favor of production 025 NYCPRIV01274 Deliberative DPP b/c reveals deliberations on neighborhood preservation plan not yet implemented; balance of Rodriguez factors weighs against production 026 NYCPRIV01284 Deliberative DPP b/c reveals deliberations on East New York rezoning plan not yet finalized; balance of Rodriguez factors weighs against disclosure 027 NYCPRIV01350 Deliberative DPP b/c Memorandum reveals deliberations on East New York rezoning plan not yet finalized; balance of Rodriguez factors weighs against disclosure 028 NYCPRIV04423 Deliberative Not DPP 029 NYCPRIV00177 Deliberative DPP b/c reveals deliberations about not yet finalized MIH policy; balance of Rodriguez factors weighs against disclosure 030 NYCPRIV04426 Deliberative DPP b/c reveals deliberations about displacement strategies; balance of Rodriguez factors weighs in favor of production 031 NYCPRIV01393 Work Product WP b/c prepared in anticipation of HUD litigation and for settlement strategezation 032 NYCPRIV04445 Deliberative DPP b/c reveals deliberations about changes to CPP; balance of Rodriguez factors weighs in favor of disclosure 18 033 NYCPRIV01748 Attorney Client;Deliberative A/C and DPP; draft marketing guidelines reflecting advice of counsel 034 NYCPRIV00252 Work Product;Deliberative WP-no substantial need; DPP b/c prepared in connection with settlement discussions with HUD about potential changes to the CPP and reflects deliberations about those changes 035 NYCPRIV00277 Deliberative DPP b/c draft of not yet finalized MIH policy and report; balance of Rodriguez factors weighs against disclosure 036 NYCPRIV05864 Deliberative DPP b/c reveals internal deliberations regarding neighborhood planning and rezoning planning; balance of Rodriquez factors weighs in favor of production insofar as it identifies neighborhoods of opportunity 037 NYCPRIV01768 Deliberative DPP; draft marketing guidelines; balance of Rodriguez factors weighs against production 038 NYCPRIV00327 Deliberative DPP because reveals deliberations about proposal for Compstat/Housingstat; balance of Rodriguez factors weighs against disclosure 039 NYCPRIV00333 Work Product;Deliberative Not WP; DPP because discusses possible changes to CPP in relation to Culver El affordable housing development; balance of Rodriguez factors weighs in favor of disclosure 19 040 NYCPRIV04470 Work Product WP b/c discusses analysis of CPP for purposes of strategizing about this litigation; no substantial need 041 NYCPRIV02183 Deliberative DPP b/c draft reveals non-final conclusions about proposed develoment project in and around Essex Street Market; balance of Rodriguez factors weighs against disclosure 042 NYCPRIV04480 Deliberative DPP because reveals discussions about preparation of report/findings for NY-CT Sustainable Communities Initiative; balance of Rodriguez factors weighs in favor of disclosure 043 NYCPRIV04487 Deliberative DPP because reveals discussions about preparation of report/findings for NY-CT Sustainable Communities Initiative; balance of Rodriguez factors weighs in favor of disclosure 044 NYCPRIV04493 Deliberative DPP because reveals discussions about preparation of report/findings for NY-CT Sustainable Communities Initiative; balance of Rodriguez factors weighs in favor of disclosure 045 NYCPRIV00360 Deliberative DPP b/c reveals deliberations about onenyc policy; balance of Rodriguez factors weighs against disclosure 046 NYCPRIV01857 Work Product WP only as to text on 2d to last page referencing this lawsuit; produce in redacted format 20 047 NYCPRIV05599 Deliberative DPP b/c reveals deliberations about use CPP; balance of Rodriguez factors weighs in favor of disclosure 048 NYCPRIV05600 Attorney Client;Legislative;Deliberat ive Not A/C; LP and DPP b/c reveals deliberations about 421a legislation; balance of Rodriguez factors weighs in favor of producing in redacted form with section on p. 2 on Community Preference unredacted 049 NYCPRIV01873 Deliberative DPP b/c reveals deliberation about application of CPP in Jamaica rezoning area; balance of Rodriguez factors weighs in favor of producing 050 NYCPRIV04497 Attorney Client;Deliberative not A/C; DPP b/c reveals deliberation about application of CPP in Greenpoint/Williamsburg; balance of Rodriguez factors weighs in favor of producing 051 NYCPRIV01881 Attorney Client;Deliberative no A/C; DPP because reveals deliberations about New Housing Market Place program; balance of Rodriguez factors weighs against disclosure 052 NYCPRIV04501 Attorney Client Not A/C b/c no legal advice conveyed or sought 053 NYCPRIV02938 Deliberative DPP b/c reveals non-final deliberations on plan; balance of Rodriguez factors weighs against disclosure 054 NYCPRIV02983 Attorney BEING PRODUCED 21 055 NYCPRIV04581 Deliberative DPP b/c reveals deliberations regarding position to take with HUD on AFFH assessment tool; balance of Rodriguez factors weighs against disclosure 056 NYCPRIV03044 Deliberative DPP b/c reviews non-final deliberations on plan; balance of Rodriguez factors weighs against disclosure 057 NYCPRIV03145 Deliberative DPP b/c reviews non-final deliberations on plan; balance of Rodriguez factors weighs against disclosure 058 NYCPRIV03242 Deliberative DPP b/c reviews non-final deliberations on plan; balance of Rodriguez factors weighs against disclosure 059 NYCPRIV03252 Deliberative DPP b/c reviews non-final deliberations on plan; balance of Rodriguez factors weighs against disclosure 060 NYCPRIV03267 Deliberative DPP b/c reviews non-final deliberations on plan; balance of Rodriguez factors weighs against disclosure 061 NYCPRIV03288 Deliberative DPP b/c reviews non-final deliberations on plan; balance of Rodriguez factors weighs against disclosure 062 NYCPRIV03298 Deliberative CITY WILL PRODUCE 063 NYCPRIV03309 Deliberative First 6 pages are DPP b/c reveals pre- planning for MIH; balance of Rodriguez factors weighs against disclosure; produce pp. 7-12 b/c factual 22 064 NYCPRIV01897 Attorney Client;Deliberative Not A/C; DPP b/c non-final draft of non- final MIH; balance of Rodriguez factors weighs against disclosure 065 NYCPRIV03329 Deliberative DPP b/c draft of non-final neighborhood plan for Bay St., Staten Island; balance of Rodriguez factors weighs in favor of production 066 NYCPRIV05641 Deliberative Not DPP b/c does not reveal internal deliberations, rather, receipt of input from CM 067 NYCPRIV05642 Deliberative Not DPP b/c does not reveal internal deliberations, rather, receipt of input from CM 068 NYCPRIV04690 Deliberative Not DPP b/c does not reveal internal deliberations, rather, receipt of input from CM and communications with CM 069 NYCPRIV03409 Deliberative DPP b/c non-final draft of non-final plan for East New York reflecting deliberations; balance of Rodriguez factors weighs against disclosure 070 NYCPRIV04708 Attorney Client;Deliberative A/C b/c requesting meeting with counsel on topics in email and deliberations about policies about fostering economic diversity in neighborhoods generally 071 NYCPRIV04712 Attorney Client;Deliberative A/C & DPP because reveals internal discussions about potential steps to mitigate displacement in Greenpoint/Williamsburg and advice sought; balance of Rodriguez factors weighs against disclosure 23 072 NYCPRIV04713 Deliberative DPP b/c reveals deliberatoins and analysis regarding Greenpoint-Williamsburg rezoning; balance of Rodriguez factors weighs against disclosure 073 NYCPRIV04765 Deliberative DPP b/c reveals deliberations regarding position to take with HUD on AFFH assessment tool; balance of Rodriguez factors weighs against disclosure 074 NYCPRIV04766 Deliberative DPP b/c reveals deliberations regarding position to take with HUD on AFFH assessment tool; balance of Rodriguez factors weighs against disclosure 075 NYCPRIV03435 Deliberative DPP b/c reviews non-final deliberations on plan; balance of Rodriguez factors weighs against disclosure 076 NYCPRIV04775 Deliberative DPP b/c reviews non-final deliberations on plan; balance of Rodriguez factors weighs against disclosure 077 NYCPRIV04810 Deliberative DPP b/c reviews non-final deliberations on plan; balance of Rodriguez factors weighs against disclosure 078 NYCPRIV03501 Deliberative DPP b/c reviews non-final deliberations on plan; balance of Rodriguez factors weighs against disclosure 079 NYCPRIV03594 Deliberative DPP b/c reviews non-final deliberations on plan; balance of Rodriguez factors weighs against disclosure 24 080 NYCPRIV04886 Deliberative DPP b/c reviews non-final deliberations on plan; balance of Rodriguez factors weighs against disclosure 081 NYCPRIV04890 Deliberative DPP b/c reviews non-final deliberations on plan; balance of Rodriguez factors weighs against disclosure 082 NYCPRIV03724 Deliberative DPP b/c reviews non-final deliberations on plan; balance of Rodriguez factors weighs against disclosure 083 NYCPRIV04959 Deliberative DPP b/c reviews non-final deliberations on plan; balance of Rodriguez factors weighs against disclosure 084 NYCPRIV03922 Deliberative DPP b/c reviews non-final deliberations on plan; balance of Rodriguez factors weighs against disclosure 085 NYCPRIV03924 Deliberative DPP b/c reviews non-final deliberations on plan; balance of Rodriguez factors weighs against disclosure 086 NYCPRIV05003 Deliberative DPP b/c reviews non-final deliberations on plan; balance of Rodriguez factors weighs against disclosure 087 NYCPRIV05051 Deliberative Not DPP b/c not internal deliberations on policy 088 NYCPRIV05742 Deliberative DPP in part; bottom email in chain is not deliberation but merely reporting of input from CM; balance of Rodriguez factors weighs against disclosure; produce in redacted format 25 089 NYCPRIV05746 Deliberative DPP in part; bottom email in chain is not deliberation but merely reporting of input from CM; balance of Rodriguez factors weighs against disclosure; produce in redacted format 090 NYCPRIV05115 Deliberative DPP b/c reveals deliberations on MIH and 421-a; balance of Rodriguez factors weighs against disclosure 091 NYCPRIV05764 Deliberative Top 2 emails in chain DPP; balance of Rodriguez factors weighs against producing; remainder of emails in chain DPP b/c does not reveal internal deliberations, rather, receipt of input from CM 092 NYCPRIV05125 Attorney Client;Deliberative A/C b/c conveys legal advice; DPP b/c reflects deliberations about policy around 421-a 093 NYCPRIV02038 Deliberative CITY WILL PRODUCE 094 NYCPRIV05210 Deliberative CITY WILL PRODUCE 095 NYCPRIV05221 Work Product;Deliberative Not DPP b/c concerns response to press question about existing policy; sentence regarding this litigation in first paragraph in 3d email in chain can be redacted as WP 096 NYCPRIV05226 Deliberative CITY WILL PRODUCE 097 NYCPRIV05227 Deliberative DPP; balance of Rodriguez factors weighs in favor of disclosure 098 NYCPRIV05228 Deliberative DPP; balance of Rodriguez factors weighs in favor of disclosure 099 NYCPRIV05246 Deliberative DPP; balance of Rodriguez factors weighs in favor of disclosure 100 NYCPRIV05248 Deliberative DPP; balance of Rodriguez factors weighs in favor of disclosure 26 101 NYCPRIV02371 CITY WILL PRODUCE 102 NYCPRIV05797 Attorney Client;Deliberative A/C and DPP insofar as reveals deliberations re: potential MIH/ZQA policy (does not mention CPP); balance of Rodriguez factors weighs against disclosure 103 NYCPRIV05798 Attorney Client;Deliberative deliberations re: potential MIH/ZQA policy (does not mention CPP); balance of 104 NYCPRIV05824 Deliberative Not DPP 105 NYCPRIV05825 Deliberative Not DPP 106 NYCPRIV02516 Work Product WP; no substantial need 107 NYCPRIV02532 Work Product WP; no substantial need 108 NYCPRIV02547 Work Product;Deliberative WP; no substantial need 109 NYCPRIV02624 Work Product WP; no substantial need 110 NYCPRIV02652 Work Product WP; no substantial need 111 NYCPRIV02722 Work Product WP; no substantial need 112 NYCPRIV05834 Deliberative DPP as to top 4 emails in chain but remainder not DPP; bottom emais in chain is not deliberation but merely reporting of input from CM; balance of Rodriguez factors weighs against disclosure of top 4 emails; produce in redacted format 113 NYCPRIV05310 Deliberative Not DPP b/c does not reveal deliberations about policy; rather reveals recommendations about how to build suport for Administration's policy proposal on affordable housing 114 NYCPRIV05845 Deliberative DPP b/c reveals deliberations about policy regarding private applications subject to MIH fir /Barnett Ave.; balance of Rodriguez factors weighs against disclosure 27 115 NYCPRIV05323 Attorney Client A/C b/c reveals subject of legal advice sought on topic of AMIs in ENY 116 NYCPRIV02470 Deliberative DPP b/c reveals deliberations on various policy options; balance of Rodriguez factors weighs against disclosure 117 NYCPRIV02456 Deliberative Not DPP 118 NYCPRIV05883 Attorney Client;Deliberative A/C because reveals advice regarding CPP and AFFH 119 NYCPRIV05885 Attorney Client;Work Product A/C communication aspect not made clear by City; WP because prepared for this litigation and reveals strategy as to defenses; no substantial need 120 NYCPRIV05900 Attorney Client;Legislative;Deliberat ive A/C b/c reveals request for legal advice and response; DPP because reveals deliberations about possible policy/legislation around AFFH; balance of Rodriguez factors weighs against disclosure; not clear how legislative 121 NYCPRIV05932 Deliberative DPP b/c reveals non-final deliberations on plan; balance of Rodriguez factors weighs against disclosure 122 NYCPRIV05933 Deliberative DPP b/c reveals non-final deliberations on plan; balance of Rodriguez factors weighs against disclosure 123 NYCPRIV05934 Legislative;Deliberative Not clear how legislative; DPP in part b/c reveals non-final deliberations on Jerome Ave. rezoning plan; balance of Rodriguez factors weighs in favor of disclosure 28 124 NYCPRIV05966 Deliberative DPP b/c reveals non-final deliberations on HNY plan; balance of Rodriguez factors weighs against disclosure 125 NYCPRIV05978 Deliberative DPP b/c reveals non-final deliberations on HNY plan; balance of Rodriguez factors weighs against disclosure 126 NYCPRIV05992 Deliberative DPP b/c reveals non-final deliberations on HNY plan; balance of Rodriguez factors weighs against disclosure 127 NYCPRIV05993 Deliberative DPP b/c reveals non-final deliberations on HNY plan; balance of Rodriguez factors weighs against disclosure 128 NYCPRIV06048 Attorney Client;Deliberative A/C because reveals discussion with counsel about 421-a; DPP b/c reveals discussion about strategy/planning on 421- a policy 129 NYCPRIV06135 Attorney Client;Deliberative A/C b/c reveals discussion with counsel re: regulatory compliance and pending legislation and impact on policy; no need to reach DPP 130 NYCPRIV06137 Attorney Client;Legislative;Deliberat ive LP & DPP & A/C; communications with counsel re: proposed fair housing bills; balance of Rodriguez factors weighs against disclosure 131 NYCPRIV06159 Attorney Client;Work Product A/C b/c reveals legal advice on 421-a policy and CPP; don't need to reach WP 29 132 NYCPRIV06193 Attorney Client;Legislative;Deliberat ive LP & DPP & A/C; communications with counsel re: proposed fair housing bills; balance of Rodriguez factors weighs against disclosure 133 NYCPRIV06208 Attorney Client A/C because draft communicaton with counsel, among others, seeking legal advice on presentation 134 NYCPRIV06213 Deliberative DPP b/c reveals internal deliberations regarding plan to maximize funds/grants for certain housing; balance of Rodriguez factors weighs against disclosure 135 NYCPRIV06277 Attorney Client A/C b/c communication with consel and others re: request to include prior residents in community preference 136 NYCPRIV06285 Attorney Client A/C b/c communication with consel and others re: REBNY and positions to take 137 NYCPRIV06329 Deliberative DPP b/c draft of prospective plan for Brownsville & reveals deliberations about same; balance of Rodriguez factors weighs against disclosure 138 NYCPRIV06331 Deliberative DPP b/c reveals deliberations about prospective plan for Brownsville; balance of Rodriguez factors weighs against disclosure 139 NYCPRIV06332 Deliberative DPP b/c draft of prospective plan for homeless unit; balance of Rodriguez factors weighs against disclosure 30 140 NYCPRIV06334 Deliberative DPP b/c draft of prospective plan for homeless unit; balance of Rodriguez factors weighs against disclosure 141 NYCPRIV06335 Deliberative DPP b/c reveals discussions about potential Brownsville affordable housing plan; balance of Rodriguez factors weighs against disclosure 142 NYCPRIV06342 Deliberative DPP b/c reveals discussions about potential Brownsville affordable housing plan; balance of Rodriguez factors weighs against disclosure 143 NYCPRIV06378 Deliberative DPP b/c reveals discussions about potential Brownsville affordable housing plan; balance of Rodriguez factors weighs against disclosure 144 NYCPRIV06382 Deliberative DPP b/c reveals discussions about potential East Harlem affordable housing plan; balance of Rodriguez factors weighs against disclosure 145 NYCPRIV06386 Legislative;Deliberative LP not clear; DPP as to top emails b/w and among administrative employees b/c reveals discussions about potential East Harlem plan; balance of Rodriguez factors weighs against disclosure; bottom email not DPP b/c reflects questions from CM; produce in redacted format 31 146 NYCPRIV06393 Deliberative DPP b/c reveals discussions about potential East Harlem affordable housing plan; balance of Rodriguez factors weighs against disclosure 147 NYCPRIV06396 Deliberative DPP b/c reveals discussions about potential East Harlem affordable housing plan; balance of Rodriguez factors weighs against disclosure 148 NYCPRIV06401 Deliberative DPP b/c reveals discussions about potential HNY plan; balance of Rodriguez factors weighs against disclosure 149 NYCPRIV06418 Deliberative DPP b/c reveals discussions about potential East Harlem affordable housing plan; balance of Rodriguez factors weighs against disclosure 150 NYCPRIV06421 Deliberative DPP b/c reveals discussions about potential East Harlem affordable housing plan; balance of Rodriguez factors weighs against disclosure 151 NYCPRIV06423 Deliberative DPP b/c reveals discussions about potential East Harlem affordable housing plan; balance of Rodriguez factors weighs against disclosure 32 152 NYCPRIV06429 Deliberative DPP b/c reveals discussions about potential East Harlem affordable housing plan; balance of Rodriguez factors weighs against disclosure 153 NYCPRIV06438 Deliberative DPP b/c reveals discussions about potential East Harlem affordable housing plan; balance of Rodriguez factors weighs against disclosure 154 NYCPRIV06439 Deliberative DPP b/c reveals discussions about potential East Harlem affordable housing plan; balance of Rodriguez factors weighs against disclosure 155 NYCPRIV06451 Deliberative DPP b/c reveals discussions about potential Jerome Ave. plan; balance of Rodriguez factors weighs against disclosure 156 NYCPRIV06452 Deliberative DPP b/c reveals discussions about potential Jerome Ave. plan; balance of Rodriguez factors weighs against disclosure 157 NYCPRIV06464 Deliberative DPP b/c reveals discussions about potential Jerome Ave. plan; balance of Rodriguez factors weighs against disclosure 158 NYCPRIV06472 Deliberative DPP b/c reveals discussions about potential Jerome Ave. plan; balance of Rodriguez factors weighs against disclosure 33 159 NYCPRIV06475 Deliberative DPP b/c reveals discussions about potential Jerome Ave. plan; balance of Rodriguez factors weighs against disclosure 160 NYCPRIV06487 Deliberative DPP b/c reveals discussions about potential Jerome Ave. plan; balance of Rodriguez factors weighs against disclosure 161 NYCPRIV06488 Legislative;Deliberative DPP b/c reveals discussions about potential Jerome Ave. plan; balance of Rodriguez factors weighs against disclosure 162 NYCPRIV06489 Deliberative DPP b/c reveals discussions about potential Jerome Ave. plan; balance of Rodriguez factors weighs against disclosure 163 NYCPRIV06561 Deliberative DPP b/c reveals discussions about potential mobility needs assessment and planning; balance of Rodriguez factors weighs against disclosure 164 Legislative;Deliberative Not DPP or LP b/c does not reveal internal deliberations about policy, rather, this is draft communication to CM 165 Work Product;Deliberative WP b/c prepared to evaluate strategy in this litigation and in advance of potential HUD litigation; no substantial need; do not need to reach DP 34 166 NYCPRIV00537 Deliberative DPP b/c reveals deliberations about HPD marketing process; balance of Rodriguez factors weighs against disclosure 167 NYCPRIV01475 Deliberative DPP b/c reveals internal discussions about various policy proposals; balance of Rodriguez factors weighs in favor of disclosure 168 Deliberative DPP b/c reveals discussions about potential East Harlem affordable housing plan; balance of Rodriguez factors weighs against disclosure 169 NYCPRIV05826 Deliberative DPP b/c reveals discussions about potential policy on center for faith and community partnership; balance of Rodriguez factors weighs against disclosure 170 Deliberative DPP b/c reveals discussions about potential ENY rezoning; balance of Rodriguez factors weighs against disclosure 171 NYCPRIV05569 Deliberative Not DPP 172 NYCPRIV02505 Work Product WP b/c prepared for this litigation; no substantial need 173 Attorney Client;Deliberative A/C not demonstrated; not DPP b/c does not refect policy discussions, rather it reflects existing policy 174 Deliberative Top email is DPP and balance of Rodriguez factors weighs against disclosure; remainder not DPP b/c does not reflect deliberatons on potential policy; rather, discussion of existing positions and facts to share with CM; produce in redacted format 35 175 Deliberative DPP b/c reveals discussions about potential Jerome Ave. plan; balance of Rodriguez factors weighs against disclosure 176 NYCPRIV05353 Attorney Client A/C because it is draft sent to counsel for comment/legal advice 177 NYCPRIV04129 Attorney Client A/C because it is draft sent to counsel for comment/legal advice 178 NYCPRIV04155 Attorney Client A/C because it is draft sent to counsel for comment/legal advice 179 NYCPRIV05438 Attorney Client;Deliberative A/C because it is draft sent to counsel for comment/legal advice; do not need to reach DPP 180 NYCPRIV04180 Deliberative DPP b/c reveals draft and non-final deliberations on housing plan; balance of Rodriguez factors weighs against disclosure 181 NYCPRIV04182 Deliberative DPP b/c reveals deliberations about potential rezoning areas and neighborhood planning projects; balance of Rodriguez factors weighs against disclosure 182 NYCPRIV04247 Attorney Client;Work Product A/C and WP; prepared in anticipation of litigation 183 NYCPRIV04249 Attorney Client;Work Product A/C because it is a draft sent to counsel for comment/legal advice 184 NYCPRIV04251 Attorney Client;Work Product A/C because it is draft sent to counsel for comment/legal advice 185 NYCPRIV04253 Attorney Client;Work Product A/C because it is draft sent to counsel for comment/legal advice 186 NYCPRIV05444 Deliberative DPP b/c reveals preliminary thoughts on 10-year plan; balance of Rodriguez factors weighs against disclosure 36 187 Deliberative DPP b/c reveals preliminary thoughts on 10-year plan; balance of Rodriguez factors weighs against disclosure 188 Deliberative Not DPP 189 NYCPRIV05446 Deliberative Not DPP 190 NYCPRIV04187 Attorney Client;Deliberative A/C and DPP; balance of Rodriguez factors weighs against disclosure 191 NYCPRIV04207 Attorney Client;Deliberative A/C b/c reflects legal advice; DPP b/c reflects deliberations about potential rezonings; balance of Rodriguez factors weighs against disclosure 192 Deliberative DPP b/c reflects deliberatios about potential neighborhood strategies; balance of Rodriguez factors weighs against disclosure 193 NYCPRIV05462 Deliberative DPP b/c reflects deliberatios about potential neighborhood strategies; balance of Rodriguez factors weighs against disclosure 194 NYCPRIV05466 Deliberative DPP b/c reflects deliberations about potential preservation program; balance of Rodriguez factors weighs against disclosure 195 NYCPRIV04214 Deliberative Not DPP b/c does not reveal deliberations about policy; rather reveals recommendations about how to build suport for Administration's policy proposal on affordable housing 196 NYCPRIV04220 Attorney Client;Deliberative A/C b/c reflects legal advice; no need to reach DPP 37 197 NYCPRIV04283 Deliberative DPP b/c reflects deliberations on potential changes to housing policy and study; balance of Rodriguez factors weighs against disclosure 198 NYCPRIV04296 Deliberative DPP b/c reflects deliberations on 10-year housing plan; balance of Rodriguez factors weighs against disclosure 199 NYCPRIV04310 Work Product;Deliberative WP b/c prepared to assist with strategy in litigation; DPP and balance of Rodriguez factors weighs against disclosure 200 NYCPRIV04311 Work Product WP b/c prepared to assist with strategy in litigation; 201 NYCPRIV04314 Work Product;Deliberative WP b/c prepared to assist with strategy in litigation; DPP and balance of Rodriguez factors weighs against disclosure 202 NYCPRIV05487 Deliberative DPP b/c reflects internal deliberations about various potential policies for affordable housing; balance of Rodriguez factors weighs against disclosure 203 NYCPRIV05492 Deliberative DPP b/c reflects internal deliberations about various potential policies for affordable housing; balance of Rodriguez factors weighs in favor of disclosure 204 NYCPRIV04371 Deliberative DPP b/c reflects internal deliberations about 10-year plan; balance of Rodriguez factors weighs against disclosure 38 205 NYCPRIV04388 Deliberative DPP b/c reflects internal discussions about potential changes to procedures in light of new AFFH rule; balance of Rodriguez factors weighs against disclosure 206 NYCPRIV05527 Deliberative Not DPP 207 NYCPRIV05533 Deliberative DPP b/c reveals deliberations about potential new areas for rezoning and affordable housing projects; balance of Rodriguez factors weighs against disclosure 208 NYCPRIV04413 Attorney Client;Deliberative A/C not demonstrated; DPP b/c reflects discussions about MIH policy; balance of Rodriguez factors weighs against disclosure 209 NYCPRIV04419 Attorney Client;Deliberative A/C not shown; DPP b/c reflects internal discussions about potential changes to procedures in light of new AFFH rule; balance of Rodriguez factors weighs against disclosure 210 NYCPRIV04424 Deliberative DPP b/c reflects internal discussions about potential changes to procedures in light of new AFFH rule; balance of Rodriguez factors weighs against disclosure 211 NYCPRIV04425 Deliberative DPP b/c reflects internal discussions about potential changes to procedures in light of new AFFH rule; balance of Rodriguez factors weighs against disclosure 212 NYCPRIV04433 Deliberative DPP b/c reflects discussions/planning on various policies; balance of Rodriguez factors weighs against disclosure 39 213 Deliberative DPP b/c reveals internal discussions on MIH; balance of Rodriguez factors weighs against disclosure 214 NYCPRIV04442 Deliberative DPP b/c reveals internal discussions on MIH; balance of Rodriguez factors weighs against disclosure 215 Deliberative DPP b/c reflects internal discussions about potential loan program to rehabilitate certain home/building loans; balance of Rodriguez factors weighs against disclosure 216 Deliberative DPP b/c reflects internal discussions about Multifamily program; balance of Rodriguez factors weighs against disclosure 217 Deliberative DPP b/c reflects internal discussions about potential loan program to rehabilitate certain home/building loans; balance of Rodriguez factors weighs against disclosure 218 Deliberative DPP b/c reflects internal discussions about potential tax credit; balance of Rodriguez factors weighs against disclosure 219 NYCPRIV04232 Deliberative DPP b/c reveals discussion about potential programs to combat landlord harassment; balance of Rodriguez factors weighs against disclosure 220 NYCPRIV04299 Deliberative DPP b/c reflects internal discussions about potential changes to procedures in light of new AFFH rule; balance of Rodriguez factors weighs against disclosure 221 NYCPRIV05580 Deliberative Not DPP b/c merely describing process 222 NYCPRIV04465 Deliberative DPP b/c reveals deliberations about ZQA and MIH; balance of Rodriguez factors weighs against disclosure 40 223 Deliberative DPP b/c reveals deliberations about ZQA and MIH; balance of Rodriguez factors weighs against disclosure 224 NYCPRIV04475 Attorney Client;Work Product;Deliberative rezonings; balance of Rodriguez factors weighs against disclosure; A/C and WP not apparent 225 NYCPRIV04495 Deliberative DPP b/c reflects discussion about potential rezonings; balance of Rodriguez factors weighs against disclosure; A/C and WP not apparent 226 NYCPRIV04516 Deliberative DPP b/c reviews non-final deliberations on Con plan; balance of Rodriguez factors weighs against disclosure 227 NYCPRIV04527 Deliberative DPP b/c reviews non-final deliberations on plan; balance of Rodriguez factors weighs against disclosure 228 NYCPRIV04533 Attorney Client;Deliberative A/C and DPP 229 Deliberative DPP b/c reviews non-final deliberations on plan; balance of Rodriguez factors weighs against disclosure 230 Deliberative DPP b/c reviews non-final deliberations on plan; balance of Rodriguez factors weighs against disclosure 231 Deliberative DPP b/c reviews non-final deliberations on plan; balance of Rodriguez factors weighs against disclosure 232 NYCPRIV04598 Deliberative DPP b/c reviews non-final deliberations on plan; balance of Rodriguez factors weighs against disclosure 41 233 Deliberative DPP b/c reviews non-final deliberations on plan; balance of Rodriguez factors weighs against disclosure 234 NYCPRIV04644 Deliberative Not DPP b/c does not reveal deliberations about policy; rather reveals recommendations about how to build suport for Administration's policy proposal on affordable housing 235 NYCPRIV04656 Deliberative DPP b/c draft of non-final neighborhood plan for Bay St., Staten Island; balance of Rodriguez factors weighs in favor of production 236 NYCPRIV04705 Deliberative Not DPP 237 NYCPRIV04710 Deliberative DPP b/c reveals deliberations on MIH; balance of Rodriguez factors weighs against disclosure 238 NYCPRIV05023 Deliberative DPP b/c reveals deliberations on 10-year plan; balance of Rodriguez factors weighs against disclosure 239 NYCPRIV05047 Deliberative DPP b/c reveals deliberations on 10-year plan; balance of Rodriguez factors weighs against disclosure 240 Deliberative DPP b/c reveals deliberations on 10-year plan; balance of Rodriguez factors weighs against disclosure 241 NYCPRIV05096 Deliberative Not DPP 242 NYCPRIV05747 Deliberative DPP b/c reveals deliberations on Jerome Ave.; balance of Rodriguez factors weighs against disclosure 243 NYCPRIV05748 Deliberative Not DPP 42 244 NYCPRIV05751 Deliberative DPP b/c reflects deliberations about community planning; balance of Rodriguez factors weighs against disclosure 245 NYCPRIV05112 Deliberative DPP b/c reveals deliberations on Faith and Community Partnership; balance of Rodriguez factors weighs against disclosure 246 NYCPRIV05113 Deliberative DPP b/c reveals deliberations on Faith and Community Partnership; balance of Rodriguez factors weighs against disclosure 247 NYCPRIV05765 Deliberative DPP b/c reveals deliberations on Barnett Ave.; balance of Rodriguez factors weighs against disclosure 248 NYCPRIV05131 Attorney Client;Work Product;Deliberative A/C b/c reflects legal advice; WP b/c portion prepared because of anticipated litigation; DPP b/c reveals deliberations on neighborhood rezonings; balance of Rodriguez factors weighs against disclosure 249 NYCPRIV05133 Deliberative Not DPP 250 NYCPRIV05134 Deliberative Not DPP 251 Deliberative DPP b/c reveals deliberations on neighborhood rezonings; balance of Rodriguez factors weighs against disclosure 43 252 NYCPRIV05140 Attorney Client;Work Product;Deliberative A/C b/c reflects legal advice; WP b/c portion prepared because of anticipated litigation; DPP b/c reveals deliberations on neighborhood rezonings; balance of Rodriguez factors weighs against disclosure 253 Deliberative DPP b/c reveals delibeations on East Harlem plan; balance of Rodriguez factors weighs against disclosure 254 Legislative;Deliberative Not LP or DPP; email does not reflect deliberatons of administration 255 NYCPRIV05770 Deliberative Not DPP 256 NYCPRIV05181 Deliberative Not DPP 257 NYCPRIV05774 Deliberative DPP re: homeless initiative; balance of Rodriguez factors weighs against disclosure 258 Deliberative DPP re: homeless initiative; balance investment Rodriguez faccommentsrs weighs against disclosure 259 NYCPRIV05255 Deliberative DPP b/c reflectd deliberations about HNY; balance of Rodriguez factors weighs against disclosure 260 Work Product WP b/c prepared in part because of this litigation; no substantial need 261 NYCPRIV05801 Attorney Client;Work Product;Deliberative WP to extent prepared because of this litigaiton; no substantial need; remainder DPP and balance of Rodriguez factors weigh against disclosure 44 262 NYCPRIV05284 Attorney Client;Work Product;Deliberative A/C b/c reflects legal advice; WP b/c portion prepared because of anticipated litigation; DPP b/c reveals deliberations on neighborhood rezonings; balance of Rodriguez factors weighs against disclosure 263 NYCPRIV05040 Attorney Client;Work Product;Deliberative A/C b/c reflects legal advice; WP b/c portion prepared because of anticipated litigation; DPP b/c reveals deliberations on neighborhood rezonings; balance of Rodriguez factors weighs against disclosure 264 NYCPRIV05809 Deliberative DPP b/c reveals deliberations on Barnett Ave.; balance of Rodriguez factors weighs against disclosure 265 NYCPRIV05810 Deliberative Not DPP 266 NYCPRIV05812 Deliberative DPP b/c reveals deliberations on homeless unit commitment; balance of Rodriguez factors weighs against disclosure 267 NYCPRIV05813 Deliberative DPP b/c reveals deliberations on homeless unit commitment; balance of Rodriguez factors weighs against disclosure 268 Deliberative DPP b/c reveals deliberations about neighborhood rezonings; balance of Rodriguez factors weighs against disclosure 45 269 NYCPRIV05821 Attorney Client;Work Product;Deliberative A/C b/c reflects legal advice; WP b/c portion prepared because of anticipated litigation; DPP b/c reveals deliberations on neighborhood rezonings; balance of Rodriguez factors weighs against disclosure 270 NYCPRIV05823 Deliberative DPP b/c reveals deliberations on faith and community partnership; balance of Rodriguez factors weighs against disclosure 271 NYCPRIV05828 Deliberative DPP b/c reveals deliberations on Barnett Ave.; balance of Rodriguez factors weighs against disclosure 272 NYCPRIV05331 Deliberative DPP b/c non-final draft of plan for ENY; balance of Rodriguez factors weighs against disclosure 273 Deliberative Not DPP 274 Attorney Client;Work Product A/C communication aspect not made clear by City; WP because prepared for this litigation and reveals strategy as to defenses; no substantial need 275 Deliberative DPP b/c reflecting planning for new report of AFFH to HUD; balance of Rodriguez factors weighs against disclosure 276 Deliberative DPP b/c reflects deliberation on rent- setting policy; balance of Rodriguez factors weighs against disclosure 277 Deliberative DPP b/c reflects discussion on Homeowner Repair Assistance program; balance of Rodriguez factors weighs against disclosure 46 278 Deliberative DPP b/c reveals internal discussions about HPD PR plans and goals; balance of Rodriguez factors weighs against disclosure 279 Deliberative DPP b/c reveals inernal affordable housing- related policy deliberations; balance of Rodriguez factors weighs against disclosure 280 Deliberative DPP b/c reveals discussions about how to prepare for and comply with new AFFH rule; balance of Rodriguez factors weighs against disclosure 281 Deliberative DPP b/c reveals discussions about how to prepare for and comply with new AFFH rule; balance of Rodriguez factors weighs against disclosure 282 Attorney Client;Deliberative A/C not apparent; not DPP 283 Deliberative DPP b/c reviews non-final deliberations on plan; balance of Rodriguez factors weighs against disclosure 284 Attorney Client;Deliberative A/C b/c draft for legal review 285 Deliberative not DPP 286 Deliberative not DPP 47 287 Deliberative DPP b/c draft of plan for partnering with non-profits and community organizations; balance of Rodriguez factors weighs against disclosure 288 Deliberative DPP b/c prospectus of plan a partnering with non-profits proposed community organizations; balance of Rodriguez factors weighs against disclosure 289 Deliberative DPP b/c reflects discussion on Homeowner Repair Assistance program; balance of Rodriguez factors weighs against disclosure 290 Deliberative DPP b/c reflects discussion on community stabilization program; balance of Rodriguez factors weighs against disclosure 291 Deliberative DPP b/c reflects discussion on community stabilization program; balance of Rodriguez factors weighs against disclosure 292 Deliberative Not DPP 293 Deliberative Not DPP 294 Deliberative DPP b/c reflects deliberations about submissions to HUD re: AFFH; balance of Rodriguez factors weighs against disclosure 295 Attorney Not DPP 296 Deliberative DPP b/c includes deliberations on certain policies; balance of Rodriguez factors weighs against disclosure 297 Attorney Client;Deliberative A/C b/c draft for legal review; do not need to reach DPP 298 Deliberative DPP b/c reflects internal deliberations on various policies related to Inwood rezoning; balance of Rodriguez factors weighs in favor of disclosure 48 299 Deliberative Not DPP 300 Deliberative DPP b/c reflects deliberations about Jerome Ave.; balance of Rodriguez factors weighs against disclosure 301 Deliberative DPP b/c reflects deliberations about Jerome Ave.; balance of Rodriguez factors weighs against disclosure 302 Deliberative DPP b/c reflects deliberations about Jerome Ave.; balance of Rodriguez factors weighs against disclosure 303 Legislative;Deliberative Not DPP; not LP for City Administration 304 Attorney A/C not aparent; not DPP 305 Deliberative Draft report re: Anti-displacement strategies 306 Deliberative DPP b/c reflects internal deliberations on various rezoning and other housing projects; balance of Rodriguez factors weighs against disclosure 307 Deliberative DPP b/c reflects internal deliberations on non-profit and faith based developers; balance cons Rodriguez facnonrs weighs against disclosure 308 Deliberative DPP b/c reflects internal discussions re: Inwood; balance of Rodriguez factors weighs against disclosure 309 Deliberative DPP b/c reflects internal discussions re: Inwood; balance of Rodriguez factors weighs against disclosure 49 310 Deliberative DPP b/c reflects internal discussions re: Inwood; balance of Rodriguez factors weighs in favor of disclosure 311 Deliberative DPP b/c reflects internal deliberations re: Partners in Preservation program; balance of Rodriguez factors weighs against disclosure 312 Deliberative Not DPP 313 Deliberative DPP b/c reflects deliberations on MIH; balance of Rodriguez factors weighs against disclosure 314 Deliberative DPP b/c reflects deliberations about East Harlem plan; balance of Rodriguez factors weighs against disclosure 315 Deliberative DPP b/c reflects deliberations about Browsvill plan; balance of Rodriguez factors weighs against disclosure 316 Deliberative DPP b/c reflects deliberations about Browsvill plan; balance of Rodriguez factors weighs against disclosure 317 Deliberative DPP b/c reveals deliberations about potential rezoning areas and neighborhood planning projects; balance of Rodriguez factors weighs against disclosure 50 318 Deliberative DPP in part insofar as it reveals internal discussions re: various planning and proposals for lower East Side development; balance of Rodriguez factors weighs against disclosure; produce in redacted format 319 Deliberative DPP b/c reflects planning discussions on Jerome Ave.; balance of Rodriguez factors weighs against disclosure 320 Deliberative Not DPP 321 Deliberative DPP b/c reflects planning discussions on Jerome Ave.; balance of Rodriguez factors weighs against disclosure 322 Deliberative DPP b/c reflects internal deliberations about potential changes to East Harlem plan; balance of Rodriguez factors weighs in favor of disclosure 323 Deliberative Not DPP 324 Deliberative Not DPP 325 Deliberative DPP b/c reflects internal deliberations about potential changes to East Harlem plan; balance of Rodriguez factors weighs against disclosure 326 Legislative;Deliberative DPP b/c reflects internal deliberations about potential Far Rockaway plan; balance of Rodriguez factors weighs against disclosure; LP not apparent 327 Deliberative DPP b/c reflects internal deliberations about potential Far Rockaway plan; balance of Rodriguez factors weighs against disclosure 51 328 Deliberative DPP b/c reflects internal deliberations about potential Far Rockaway plan; balance of Rodriguez factors weighs against disclosure 329 Deliberative DPP b/c reflects internal deliberations about potential Far Rockaway plan; balance of Rodriguez factors weighs against disclosure 330 Legislative;Deliberative DPP b/c reflects internal deliberations about potential East Harlem plan; balance of Rodriguez factors weighs against disclosure; LP not apparent 331 Deliberative DPP b/c reflects internal deliberations about potential changes to Jerome Ave. plan; balance of Rodriguez factors weighs against disclosure 332 Deliberative DPP b/c reveals deliberations on research needed to assist in policy formulation on housing; balance of Rodriguez factors weighs against disclosure 333 Deliberative DPP b/c reveals deliberations on potential creation of neighborhood stabilization unit; balance of factors weighs against disclosure 334 Deliberative DPP b/c reveals deliberatons on HNY plan; balance of Rodriguez factors weighs against disclosure 335 Deliberative DPP b/c reveals deliberatons on HNY plan; balance of Rodriguez factors weighs against disclosure 52 336 Deliberative DPP b/c reveals deliberatons on plan to work with non-profit developers; balance of Rodriguez factors weighs in favor of disclosure 337 Deliberative DPP b/c reveals deliberatons on perservation locations; balance of Rodriguez factors weighs against disclosure 338 Deliberative Not DPP 339 Deliberative DPP b/c reflects internal deliberations about potential changes to Jerome Ave. plan; balance of Rodriguez factors weighs against disclosure 340 Deliberative DPP b/c reveals planning on potential partners in preservation initiative; balance of Rodriguez factors weighs against disclosure 341 Deliberative DPP b/c reflects internal deliberations about potential changes to Jerome Ave. plan; balance of Rodriguez factors weighs against disclosure 342 Deliberative DPP b/c reflects internal deliberations about potential changes to Jerome Ave. plan; balance of Rodriguez factors weighs against disclosure 343 NYCPRIV02199 Deliberative DPP b/c reveals planning on ENY plan; balance of Rodriguez factors weighs against disclosure 344 NYCPRIV00171 Attorney Client;Work Product;Deliberative WP b/c prepared in anticipation of potential HUD litigation and for settlement strategy; no substantial need; not A/C; do not need to reach DPP 53 345 NYCPRIV01898 Legislative;Deliberative Not DPP or LP b/c does not reveal internal deliberations about policy, rather, this is notes of a meeting 346 NYCPRIV04729 Attorney Client A/C b/c reflects leagal advice requested and conveyed 347 NYCPRIV05930 Deliberative DPP b/c reflect discussions on con plan planning; balance of Rodriguez factors weighs against disclosure 348 NYCPRIV05945 Deliberative DPP b/c reflect discussions on con plan planning; balance of Rodriguez factors weighs against disclosure 349 NYCPRIV05955 Deliberative Not DPP b/c does not reveal deliberations about policy; rather reveals work assignments 350 NYCPRIV06065 Attorney Client;Deliberative A/C b/c reveals discussion with counsel re: regulatory compliance and pending legislation and impact on policy; no need to reach DPP