Uniformed Fire Officers Association v. DeBlasio, 973 F.3d 41

Background

New York repealed Civil Rights Law §50‑a on June 12, 2020, removing statutory confidentiality for many police personnel records.
On July 9 the NYCLU submitted a FOIL request to the CCRB; on July 14 the CCRB provided an Excel database with records on ~81,000 NYPD officers, which the NYCLU downloaded.
On July 14 several unions sued in New York Supreme Court seeking to enjoin disclosure of “unsubstantiated and non‑final” allegations; a state court granted a TRO on July 15; the City removed the case to federal court that day.
On July 22 the District Court (Judge Failla) orally applied the TRO to the NYCLU as a nonparty “acting in concert” with defendants and ordered the NYCLU not to disclose the records.
On July 28–29 the District Court revisited that ruling, found the NYCLU had obtained the records before the TRO and lacked notice, and modified the July 22 order to exclude the NYCLU (staying that modification 24 hours to permit appeal).
The unions appealed and sought a stay pending appeal; a three‑judge panel of the Second Circuit denied the stay (Aug. 20, 2020), concluding the unions had no likelihood of success on the merits.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether a District Court may bind a nonparty (NYCLU) under Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(d)(2) as "in active concert or participation" with a party	NY unions: NYCLU acted in concert with City because CCRB disclosed the database soon after NYCLU's FOIL request, so NYCLU should be bound	NYCLU/City: NYCLU obtained the records lawfully before any TRO existed and had no notice; Rule 65 binds only nonparties who receive actual notice or act after the injunction	Held: NYCLU was not in active concert; it received records before any injunction and had no notice, so Rule 65 did not bind it
Whether the July 29 modification excluding NYCLU is appealable	Unions: sought appellate review and stay (implicitly treating the modification as an appealable denial of relief)	NYCLU/others: the change was not a novel or long‑lasting order; but the court may treat it as appealable because disclosure would be irreparable	Held: Court treated the July 29 order as the denial of a preliminary injunction for appealability purposes because disclosure would cause "serious, perhaps irreparable" consequences
Whether a stay pending appeal should issue (Nken factors: likelihood of success, irreparable harm, balance of equities, public interest)	Unions: disclosure would cause irreparable harm to officers and interfere with collective bargaining; thus a stay should issue	NYCLU/City: unions cannot show likelihood of success because NYCLU lacked notice and could not be in active concert; constitutional prior‑restraint arguments favor NYCLU	Held: Stay denied — unions failed to show any likelihood of success on the merits, so the other factors do not warrant a stay
Whether an injunction can reach back to bar conduct that occurred before the injunction was issued	Unions: (argued retrospective effect by applying TRO to NYCLU)	NYCLU/City: injunctions do not reach backward; a nonparty who acted before an injunction cannot be bound for prior lawful conduct	Held: An injunction does not reach backward in time; NYCLU’s receipt of records before the TRO precluded binding it for that conduct

Key Cases Cited

Granny Goose Foods, Inc. v. Brotherhood of Teamsters and Auto Truck Drivers Local No. 70, 415 U.S. 423 (1974) (TRO duration and effect after removal to federal court)
Nken v. Holder, 556 U.S. 418 (2009) (standards for stay pending appeal)
NML Capital, Ltd. v. Republic of Argentina, 727 F.3d 230 (2d Cir. 2013) (nonparty bound by injunction only if in active concert and with notice)
Romer v. Green Point Savings Bank, 27 F.3d 12 (2d Cir. 1994) (when a TRO may be treated as an appealable preliminary injunction)
Paramount Pictures Corp. v. Carol Publishing Group, Inc., 25 F. Supp. 2d 372 (S.D.N.Y. 1998) (injunctions do not operate retroactively to reach prior conduct)
United States v. Simcho, [citation="326 F. App'x 791"] (5th Cir. 2009) (denial of stay where appellant showed no likelihood of success)