Barella v. Village of Freeport
2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 160268
| E.D.N.Y | 2013Background
- Plaintiff Christopher Barella sued Village of Freeport and former Mayor Andrew Hardwick under Title VII, § 1981, § 1983, and NYSHRL, alleging racial and national-origin discrimination in failure to promote to Chief of Police or other command positions.
- Plaintiff sought personnel files for 24 non-party individuals whom he alleges were favorably hired or promoted by Hardwick, to identify comparators and support a disparate-treatment theory.
- Magistrate Judge William Wall granted Plaintiff’s third motion to compel production of those 24 personnel files (allowing redaction of personal information).
- The Village objected under Fed. R. Civ. P. 72, arguing lack of particularized need, improper reliance on a pattern-and-practice theory, cumulative/duplicative discovery, privacy statutes (FOIA exemptions, NY law), and prejudice; it sought a stay.
- District Judge Spatt reviewed the objections, applying Rule 26 discovery standards and balancing privacy against Plaintiff’s need, and affirmed Judge Wall’s order, directing sealing and restricting disclosure of the files.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Scope of discovery to obtain 24 non-party personnel files | Files are relevant to show comparators and disparate treatment by same decision-maker (Hardwick) | No specific need shown; files involve non-police employees and are not proper comparators | Court: Broad discovery permitted; records may reveal proper comparators; production allowed with redaction/sealing |
| Use of pattern-and-practice/statistical evidence | Plaintiff may use statistical or comparator evidence to support individual disparate-treatment claim | Village contends Title VII pattern-and-practice theory unavailable to plaintiff | Court: Plaintiff can use statistical/comparator evidence in disparate-treatment claims; not barred as discovery basis |
| Privacy and statutory confidentiality objections (FOIA, NY statutes) | Protective measures (redaction, confidentiality stipulation, sealing) will protect privacy interests | FOIA Exemptions 6 and 7 and NY privacy laws bar disclosure | Court: FOIA exemptions and NY statutes are inapplicable or unpersuasive in federal civil discovery; redaction and sealing address privacy concerns |
| Burden / duplicative discovery and prejudice to Village | Discovery is reasonably calculated to lead to admissible evidence and is not duplicative | Production is cumulative, burdensome, and prejudicial | Court: Village failed to show specific burden; balancing favors disclosure subject to protective measures |
Key Cases Cited
- In re DG Acquisition Corp., 151 F.3d 75 (2d Cir.) (broad district court discretion over discovery)
- Oppenheimer Fund, Inc. v. Sanders, 437 U.S. 340 (Supreme Court 1978) (broad relevance standard for discovery)
- Wards Cove Packing Co. v. Atonio, 490 U.S. 642 (Supreme Court 1989) (liberal discovery in employment discrimination cases)
- Graham v. Long Island R.R., 230 F.3d 34 (2d Cir.) (standards for similarly situated comparators)
- Hollander v. American Cyanamid Co., 895 F.2d 80 (2d Cir.) (permitting statistical evidence in individual disparate-treatment claims)