District Court, S.D. New York, 2020

Local 3621, EMS Officers Union, DC-37, AFSCME, AFL-CIO v. City of New York

Local 3621, EMS Officers Union, DC-37, AFSCME, AFL-CIO v. City of New York
District Court, S.D. New York · Decided December 4, 2020
Local 3621, EMS Officers Union, DC-37, AFSCME, AFL-CIO v. City of New York

Trial Court Opinion

KURLAND The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed t AT LAW make ECF No. 247 only visible to the Plaintiffs, Defendants and the Court and to close the Motion at ECF No. 248.

December 2, 2020 SO ORDERED 12/4/2020 VIA ECF Cua iy, The Honorable Sarah L. Cave, U.S.M.J. Geel United States District Court, Southern District of New York ~United States Magistrate J Pearl Street, Room 702 New York, NY 10007 Re: _ Local 3621, etal v. City of New York, et al; Index No. 18-cv-04476(LJL)(SLO) Your Honor: Defendants’ counsel filed this eveningas part of their opposition to Plaintiffs’ crossmotion for a protective order, the very information that Plaintiffs seek a protective order for, namely unsubstantiated and irrelevant allegations about the prior disciplinary history of Representative Plaintiff Mascol including charges that were ultimately dropped and a confidential stipulation of settlement that expressly carves out Captain Mascol’s right to apply for a promotion.

Upon information and belief, this was done in an effort to prejudice the Court because Defendants’ counsel feared she would be foreclosed from doing so if the protective order was issued.

While it is reprehensible that Defendants’ counsel would make these prejudicial and irrelevant accusations against Captain Mascol and submit them and a confidential settlement agreement in a public filing with the Court, especially given the protections sought in the instant motion. The merits of these accusations and their relevance will be addressed in Plaintiffs’ reply.

In the immediate we simply ask that this response [Dkt. No. 247] be sealed until the matter of the protective order is decided by the Court. United States v. Amodeo, 71 F.3d 1044, 1051 (2d Cir. 1995) (“In determining the weight to be accorded an assertion of a right of privacy, courts should first consider the degree to which the subject matter is traditionally considered private rather than public.”)

Respectfully Submitted, sh Yetta G. Kurland BROAD STREET 28% FLOOR NEW YORK, NY 10004 P: 212 253 6911 F: 212 614 2532 [email protected] VIIRI AAIHCRMIID CORA

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.