Dorsett v. County of Nassau
800 F. Supp. 2d 453
E.D.N.Y2011Background
- On March 19, 2009, Leonardo Valdez-Cruz murdered Jo'Anna Bird in Nassau County; Bird allegedly sought protection from police prior to death but was ignored.
- Plaintiff Sharon Dorsett (as administratrix) filed federal and state claims against Nassau County, its police department, the DA's office, Detective Ariola, and unnamed officers/DAs; Valdez-Cruz is also named and in prison.
- Nassau County Internal Affairs produced the IAU Report 14-2009, a 712-page document; initial production was heavily redacted, prompting a motion to compel full production.
- Magistrate Judge Tomlinson issued two orders (Jan 14, 2011 and Jan 19, 2011) limiting dissemination of the IAU Report; the County Defendants complied prior to any protective order being issued.
- The plaintiff and Newsday/News 12 objected; settlement between plaintiff and County Defendants occurred in July 2011, but press intervenors maintained First Amendment interests in disseminating the IAU Report; objections remained pending in part.
- The Court ultimately affirmed Judge Tomlinson's protective order restricting public dissemination of the IAU Report.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Rule 26(c) protective order was proper under First Amendment standards. | Dorsett; press intervenors argue the order improperly gagged dissemination. | County Defendants contend good cause supports protection; production without protection does not bar later protective relief. | Affirmed; protective order upheld. |
| Whether producing the IAU Report unredacted waived the right to later seek confidentiality. | Waiver due to production without restriction. | Waiver not established given the unique facts; no intentional relinquishment. | Judge Tomlinson's ruling not disturbed; no waiver found. |
| Whether the January 14, 2011 Order appropriately limits dissemination within litigation after production. | First Amendment concerns, gag-like effects. | Rule 26(c) good cause standard suffices; not a pure gag order. | Applicable; good cause standard governs dissemination within litigation. |
| Whether the case settlement mooted objections to the January 19, 2011 Order. | Objections persist. | Settlement moots issues related to publication within litigation. | Objections to Jan. 19 order moot, with leave to re-file if settlement not consummated. |
| Whether the press Intervenors’ request to maintain a public docket is proper. | Public docket transparency. | Not addressed by the orders; concerns unresolved. | Denied; may renew as a separate motion. |
Key Cases Cited
- Seattle Times Co. v. Rhinehart, 467 U.S. 20 (U.S. 1984) (confidentiality orders and First Amendment limits in discovery)
- Smith v. Daily Mail Pub. Co., 443 U.S. 97 (U.S. 1979) (publication of information generally available to the public)
- Nebraska Press Ass'n v. Stuart, 427 U.S. 539 (U.S. 1976) (gag-order-like restraints and First Amendment concerns)
- Dubai Islamic Bank v. Citibank, N.A., 211 F. Supp. 2d 447 (S.D.N.Y. 2001) (standard for reviewing protective orders limiting dissemination)
- U.S. v. International Business Machines Corp., 70 F.R.D. 700 (S.D.N.Y. 1976) (timeliness and waiver considerations in protective orders)
- U.S. Gypsum Co., 333 U.S. 364 (U.S. 1948) (standard of review for clearly erroneous/contrary to law)
- United States v. Salameh, 992 F.2d 445 (2d Cir. 1993) (First Amendment implications of dissemination)
- In re N.Y. Times Co., 878 F.2d 67 (2d Cir. 1989) (per curiam on publication of information)