Summary
In Svaigsen v. City of New York, 203 A.D.2d 32, 33 (1st Dept. 1994), it was held that "when a State court entertains a Federally created cause of action, the Federal right cannot be defeated by the forms of local practice.
Summary of this case from People v. CruzOpinion
April 5, 1994
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Queens County (Arnold Price, J.).
This matter arises out of the April 22, 1988 shooting of plaintiff's decedent, Yves Gousse La Marre, a 16-year old student, during a "buy and bust" operation. He was mortally wounded while allegedly making a sale of crack to an undercover New York City Police Officer. He died four days later. An investigation was immediately undertaken by the Internal Affairs Unit of the New York City Police Department.
Appellant Frances Svaigsen, Public Administrator on behalf of the deceased, commenced the instant action against defendants on December 19, 1988, claiming wrongful arrest, assault, false imprisonment, and wrongful death under State law and deprivation of decedent's Federal civil rights pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff served defendants with a notice of discovery and inspection, seeking records made in the course of the investigation, "including statements made by all officers participating in the operation" during which La Marre met his death.
In support of her motion to compel discovery, plaintiff took the position that because the 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claim arises under Federal law, the officers' statements are discoverable pursuant to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Defendants cross-moved for a protective order, arguing that the officers who were interviewed are exempt from disclosure under the New York State Freedom of Information Law (FOIL), specifically Public Officers Law § 87 (2) (g). Supreme Court denied plaintiff's motion and granted defendants' cross-motion for a protective order, without elaboration.
It is not disputed that State and Federal courts enjoy concurrent jurisdiction over section 1983 claims (Patsy v Board of Regents, 457 U.S. 496, 506-507; Felder v Casey, 487 U.S. 131). When a State court entertains a Federally created cause of action, the "`federal right cannot be defeated by the forms of local practice'" (Felder v Casey, supra, at 138, quoting Brown v Western Ry., 338 U.S. 294, 296). This is especially true of section 1983, which was enacted particularly to vindicate Federal rights "against deprivation by state action" (Kerr v United States Dist. Ct., 511 F.2d 192, 197 [9th Cir], affd 426 U.S. 394, citing Monroe v Pape, 365 U.S. 167, 180). Thus, it is appropriate that the court follow Federal law when assessing the discoverability of documents sought by plaintiff.
In an analogous case, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York ordered disclosure of a police officer's answers to interrogatories. While that case ruled that New York Civil Rights Law § 50-a was not properly invoked (King v Conde, 121 FRD 180, 186), Public Officers Law § 87 (2) (g) similarly involves a statutory privilege exempting intra-agency materials from disclosure. The decision includes an exhaustive analysis of the procedure to "govern all discovery disputes over police records in federal civil rights actions" (supra, at 188).
A defendant resisting discovery bears the burden of justifying the statutory privilege (Matter of Washington Post Co. v New York State Ins. Dept., 61 N.Y.2d 557). The reasons for nondisclosure must be specified so that the court can conduct a meaningful balancing test of the factors bearing on discovery (King v Conde, supra, at 189; Cornell Univ. v City of N Y Police Dept., 153 A.D.2d 515, 517, lv denied 75 N.Y.2d 707 [City failed to specify the basis for refusing disclosure]). Statutory exemptions are subject to narrow construction in view of the presumption of availability of agency records under the Freedom of Information Law (Matter of Farbman Sons v New York City Health Hosps. Corp., 62 N.Y.2d 75; Matter of Newsday, Inc. v New York State Urban Dev. Corp., 181 A.D.2d 436; Matter of Polansky v Regan, 81 A.D.2d 102, 103; Matter of Gannett Co. v James, 86 A.D.2d 744, lv denied 56 N.Y.2d 502).
Plaintiff's request encompasses information given to the Internal Affairs Unit and interviews of police officers conducted in connection with the investigation into the shooting death of plaintiff's decedent. While ordinarily these requests might be viewed as falling within the exemptions to FOIL under Public Officers Law § 87 (2) (g) as predecisional intra-agency materials (Matter of Scaccia v New York State Div. of State Police, 138 A.D.2d 50), the interviews sought would appear to comprise factual accounts of the incident. As such, they do not remain protected (see, Matter of Newsday, Inc. v New York City Police Dept., 133 A.D.2d 4, 17 [Smith, J., dissenting]; Matter of Xerox Corp. v Town of Webster, 65 N.Y.2d 131, 133 [reversed for assessment of whether reports contain statistical or factual data]).
Plaintiff avers that the material sought is crucial to her prosecution of this action. Under the particular facts of this case, we conclude that plaintiff should be allowed the greater latitude for discovery under the Federal interpretation of laws granting a privilege against disclosure. We therefore remand for in camera review of the police officer interviews (see, e.g., Becker v City of New York, 162 A.D.2d 488, 489). Should Supreme Court, upon further review, find that there still exists non-factual exempted information under Public Officers Law § 87 (2) (g), it may redact those parts of the documents and disclose the relevant factual information to plaintiff.
Concur — Rosenberger, J.P., Asch, Rubin, Williams and Tom, JJ.