Opinion
CIVIL NO. 08-1873(NLH)(AMD)
06-13-2012
LISA CRESS, on behalf of herself, and as GUARDIAN FOR MINOR K.C. and as GUARDIAN FOR MINOR C.C., and DANIEL LOMBARDI, Plaintiffs/Counter-Defendants, v. VENTNOR CITY, ATLANTIC COUNTY, THEODORE BERGMAN, DOUGLAS BIAGI, MICHAEL MILLER, SCHALLUS, JOHN DOE #1-10(MASKED MEN IN BLACK), EGG HARBOR TOWNSHIP, JAMES DONALDSON, JOSEPH BONSALL, JAY WOODS, JASON RZEMYK, JAMES SHARKEY, SEAN CLANCEY, FRANK CULMONE, FRANCISCO CORREA, DAVE DRUDING, STEVEN SWANKOSKI, and TIM COLELLA, Defendants/Cross-Claimants/Cross-Defendants.
COURTNEY ERIN BLACK JENNIFER ANN BONJEAN BONJEAN LAW GROUP PLLC On behalf of plaintiffs THOMAS B. REYNOLDS REYNOLDS, DRAKE, WRIGHT & MARCZYK On behalf of Ventnor City, Theodore Bergman, Douglas Biagi, Michael Miller, Schallus ROBERT P. MERENICH GEMMEL, TODD & MERENICH, P.A. On behalf of Egg Harbor Township, James Donaldson, Joseph Bonsall, Jay Woods, Jason Rzemyk, Dave Druding, Steven Swankoski, Tim Colella JAMES T. DUGAN ATLANTIC COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF LAW On behalf of Atlantic County and James Sharkey
MEMORANDUM OPINION & ORDER
APPEARANCES:
COURTNEY ERIN BLACK
JENNIFER ANN BONJEAN
BONJEAN LAW GROUP PLLC
On behalf of plaintiffs
THOMAS B. REYNOLDS
REYNOLDS, DRAKE, WRIGHT & MARCZYK
On behalf of Ventnor City, Theodore Bergman, Douglas Biagi, Michael Miller, Schallus
ROBERT P. MERENICH
GEMMEL, TODD & MERENICH, P.A.
On behalf of Egg Harbor Township, James Donaldson, Joseph Bonsall, Jay Woods, Jason Rzemyk, Dave Druding, Steven Swankoski, Tim Colella
JAMES T. DUGAN
ATLANTIC COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF LAW
On behalf of Atlantic County and James Sharkey HILLMAN, District Judge
In this case involving allegations of constitutional violations by defendant police officers in connection with the execution of a "no-knock" search warrant executed at night upon plaintiffs at their home, presently before the Court is the motion of plaintiffs to unseal the identities and deposition testimony of two confidential informants, who purportedly provided the probable cause for the search warrant; and
Previously, the Court having granted plaintiffs' request to take the depositions of the two confidential informants; and
Plaintiffs having deposed the confidential informants, and that testimony, along with their identities, currently remains under seal; and
Plaintiffs now requesting that the confidential informants' identities and the transcripts of their depositions be unsealed; and
Defendants having opposed plaintiffs' motion; and The Court having reviewed the deposition transcripts; and The Court recognizing that "unwarranted disclosure of government informers poses a very real threat to the continued vitality of the principle" of the informer's privilege, Cashen v. Spann, 334 A.2d 8, 15 (N.J. 1975), cert. denied, 423 U.S. 829 (1975); but
The Court also recognizing that where the disclosure of a confidential informant's identity is "is essential to a fair determination of a cause, the privilege must give way," Roviaro v. United States, 353 U.S. 53, 61 (1957); and
The Court having previously balanced the competing interests, as set forth in Cashen, when allowing plaintiffs to take the depositions of the confidential informants; and
The Court again considering those interests with regard to plaintiffs' current request to unseal the identities of the confidential informants and the content of their deposition testimony in order to support their claims;
Consequently,
IT IS HEREBY on this 13th_ day of June, 2012
ORDERED that plaintiffs' motion to unseal [133, 134] is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART, as follows:
1. The deposition transcripts of the two confidential informants shall be unsealed, except that
a. The names and any other identifying information of the two informants shall be redacted and remain under seal, and2. The determination of whether the confidential informants' identities will remain sealed for purposes of trial will be determined in pretrial hearings should the case proceed to trial.
b. The testimony of CI2 regarding prior cooperation with law enforcement unrelated to this case shall be redacted and remain under seal.
At Camden, New Jersey
The parties are directed to meet or confer and to agree on redacted transcripts consistent with the terms of this Order.
___________
NOEL L. HILLMAN, U.S.D.J.