Happening now in SDNY, a hearing on “Uniformed Fire Officers Assoc. et al v. DeBlasio”: police + other public sector unions are fighting a NYC plan to publish 1000s of complaints about alleged police misconduct, which were previously shielded for decades by 50-a.
2/ Court official says “keep in mind, members of the media may be present.” As usual, no recording allowed, depriving the public of higher quality @WNYC content.
3/ SDNY Judge Failla asks the NYC Law Dept attorney what records have been disclosed thus far before the unions’ court action. Also asks what records the city wants to release post-50a repeal.
4/ Law department says tens of thousands of 50-a records from the CCRB have already been turned over to @NYCLU.
5/ That release of 81,000 documents about police officers was made pursuant to FOIL. Judge asks if there were any exemptions in this mass FOIL release. Law dept attorney notes release didn’t include much factual complaint info, but included info on complaint types + dispositions.
6/ The law department says the city would like to publish complaint data in open data portals for various agencies, but says individual agencies are still discussing how much information to proactively disclose.
7/ Judge brings up unions’ arguments that many records are protected by collective bargaining agreements, legal settlements etc. Law dept dismisses plaintiffs’ equal protection/due process claims.
8/ Law dept seems to say the NYPD is going to make a very limited release, only final rulings on disciplinary charges. NYC Corrections plans to release some substantiated records online. Firefighters plan to proactively release nothing.
9/ Union attorney says he is “stunned” to learn that the CCRB has already released tens of thousands of records.
10/ Union attorney says that @NYCMayor and the NYPD have said they will release many more records than the law dept is now saying.
11/ Union attorney argues discovery in this case is necessary bc of “inconsistent” statements from city about what iab being released. Attorney says the CCRB’s release was a violation of his clients’ collective bargaining agreements.
12/ Judge asks if union attorney has problem with corrections authorities’ plans to release substantiated findings: “So Mr. Coles what’s wrong with that?” Union attorney says this may be ok.
13/ Law dept attorney clarifies that CCRB release was actually a spreadsheet, not documents as previously said.
14/ Law department attorney says the unions’ attorney was repeatedly told he would not be given assurances about what would be released.
15/ Union attorney says the NYPD definitely told the unions that they would release records related to pending cases. Law department disputes this, but tells judge she will confirm after being asked to.
16/ Law department’s statements here about a very limited NYPD release seem to clearly contradict @NYCMayor’s public claims that pending charges against officers will be published online. See @erinmdurkin’s reporting last month:
politico.com/states/new-yor…
politico.com/states/new-yor…
17/ A mayor’s spokesperson also said that the NYPD would release much more than what the city is now saying. H/t @ChristRobbins 
18/ The union attorney is now suggesting to the judge that the thousands of records given by the CCRB to the NYCLU should be “recaptured.”
19/ The union attorney also says communications between city officials and NYCLU in response to their FOIL should be subject to discovery. Says he’s “suspicious” about the speedy release.
20/ Christopher Dunn of NYCLU confirms his org received a spreadsheet with 81,000 records on alleged officer misconduct. Notes that the CCRB has a well established data system + was not surprised by quick response.
21/ City attorney contradicts herself/clarifies again...Now suggests that some pending matters actually will be published by NYPD if they have been initially substantiated but will undergo further adjudication. Union attorney says those records should be enjoined.
22/ Both sides are making final args about whether releases would damage officers’ reputations, and whether officers have a legal right not to have their reputations harmed.
23/ Union attorney says the temporary restraining order on records should be extended for several months. Says it’s been 40 years so the city can wait that time.
24/ Judge promises decision in an hour.... stay tuned
25/BREAKING: Judge Failla grants police unions’ request for temporary restraining order on release of police misconduct records.
26/ Judge asks Chris Dunn from Nyclu if he’s willing to agree to not share thousands of CCRB records they have. Dunn says he can’t immediately agree to her request.
27/ Judge also orders CCRB to promptly modify its trial calendar, which was to include officer names post 50-a, and grants unions’ discovery requests about city’s planned releases + about the CCRB’s method of FOIL release to NYCLU.
28/ judge says the restraining order will extend till August 18th when an injunction hearing will take place.
29/ Dunn says the court doesn’t have jurisdiction to order NYCLU not to share records since it is not a party to the case.
30/ Judge asks again if Dunn will abide by her request not to share data until she can review NYCLU’s argument. But Dunn responds again that the court has “no jurisdiction over us whatsoever”
31/ Judge now argues that she decided that NYCLU was acting in concert with the city and this does have to present an argument before the court. The tone is tense...
32/ The judge seemed to take NYCLU’s argument personally, scolding Dunn not to use the phrase “with all due respect” and clarifying the “in concert” argument at the last minute to attempt to bind NYCLU to her order. She also scoffed at CCRB’s quick release of the FOIL record.
