Centro De La Comunidad Hispana De Locust Valley v. Town of Oyster Bay
705 F. App'x 10
2d Cir.2017Background
- Plaintiffs: two organizations (Centro de la Comunidad Hispana de Locust Valley and The Workplace Project) representing/advocating for day laborers challenged an Oyster Bay ordinance restricting solicitation of employment.
- Defendants: Town of Oyster Bay and Town Supervisor John Venditto enacted/defended the ordinance and sought discovery about Plaintiffs’ day laborer members.
- District court entered a protective order limiting disclosure of Plaintiffs’ members, citing associational First Amendment concerns, and granted summary judgment for Plaintiffs invalidating the ordinance.
- Town appealed, arguing the protective order prevented it from obtaining evidence necessary to defend on standing and Central Hudson commercial-speech grounds and that summary judgment thereby prejudiced its defense and due process rights.
- Second Circuit affirmed, holding (1) Town failed to show prejudice from the protective order and (2) information about members would not have changed the standing or Central Hudson analyses.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Protective order limiting disclosure of members | Disclosure would chill associational rights; discovery not necessary | Order prevented access to critical evidence from day laborers and prejudiced defense | Affirmed: Town did not show prejudice from the protective order |
| Standing | Organizations asserted injury to themselves (organizational standing) | Needed member-level discovery to challenge standing | Held for Plaintiffs: membership discovery would not affect organizational standing analysis |
| Whether speech restricted "concerns lawful activity" (Central Hudson step zero) | Ordinance restricts solicitations that propose no illegal conduct; thus concerns lawful activity | Member testimony could show speech was illegal or different in nature | Held: Face of ordinance targets lawful activity; member info would not change that conclusion |
| Central Hudson narrowness/practical fit | Ordinance overbroad; not narrowly tailored to harms asserted | Member-specific evidence of speech and harms needed to assess narrowness | Held: Member evidence would not cure overbreadth; ordinance could apply broadly to innocuous speakers, so disclosure would not affect outcome |
Key Cases Cited
- Nnebe v. Daus, 644 F.3d 147 (2d Cir.) (organizational standing principles)
- Swedenburg v. Kelly, 358 F.3d 223 (2d Cir.) (speech that proposes no illegal conduct concerns lawful activity)
- Central Hudson Gas & Elec. Corp. v. Public Serv. Comm’n, 447 U.S. 557 (U.S. 1980) (four-part test for commercial speech protection)
- Lyng v. Northwest Indian Cemetery Protective Ass’n, 485 U.S. 439 (U.S. 1988) (judicial restraint; avoid unnecessary constitutional rulings)
- Lederman v. New York City Dep’t of Parks & Recreation, 731 F.3d 199 (2d Cir.) (standard of review for discovery orders)
- Columbus-Am. Discovery Grp. v. Atlantic Mut. Ins. Co., 974 F.2d 450 (4th Cir.) (due process challenge to summary judgment based on discovery limitations)