Opinion
02 Civ. 2792 (LAK)
October 29, 2002
ORDER
Plaintiff has requested production of the personnel file of Officer Pietropolo. Defendants have resisted production, claiming that the file is privileged under N.Y. Civ. Rts. L. § 50-a. Plaintiff therefore has applied by letter for an order compelling production.
This is a federal civil rights action. The law governing claims of privilege is federal, not state. Fed.R.Evid. 501. In consequence, N.Y. Civ. Rts. L. § 50-a does not apply, see, e.g., von Bulow v. von Bulow, 811 F.2d 136, 141 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 481 U.S. 1015 (1987); Tolbert v. Atkins, No. 93 Civ. 2791 (RPP), 1995 WL 230408 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 18, 1995); Malsh v. New York City Police Dept., No. 92 Civ. 2973 (KTD) (AJP), 1995 WL 217507 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 11, 1995); Unger v. Cohen, 125 F.R.D. 67, 69 (S.D.N.Y. 1989), although the considerations underlying it have some bearing.
Defendants have ignored plaintiff's application to the Court, thus suggesting that their concern here is not very great. Recognizing, however, that the officer's privacy interest in the personnel file is entitled to some consideration, its production should be contingent upon the entry of an appropriate confidentiality order and, moreover, the extent of production restricted to the matters that plaintiff claims to be germane — "any past complaints against him and/or disciplining [sic] of him by the Village."
Accordingly, the parties shall submit, on or before November 12, 2002, an agreed form of confidentiality order or, failing agreement, letters setting forth the extent of any agreement and the points of disagreement. Upon the entry of such an order by the Court, defendants shall produce, subject to the order, to plaintiff's counsel copies of any past complaints against the officer and any documents relating to any discipline sought or imposed upon him by the Village.
SO ORDERED.