15 -2 91 4- cv

Centro v. O yster Bay 

### U N I T E D S T A T E S C O U R T O F A P P E A L S

F O R T H E S E C O N D C I R C U I T 

## S UM M ARY O RD E R

RULIN GS BY SUMMARY ORDER DO NOT HAVE PRECE DENTI AL EFFEC T. CITAT ION TO A SUMMARY ORDER FILED ON OR A F T E R J A N UARY 1, 2007, IS PERMI TTED AND IS GOVER NED BY FEDER

AL RU L E O F A PPELLATE PROCE DURE 32.1 AND THIS COURT =S LOCAL RULE 32.1. 1. WHEN CITIN G A SUMMARY O RD E R I N A DOCUMENT FILED WITH THIS COURT , A PARTY MUST CITE EITHE R THE FEDER AL APPEN D I X O R AN ELECT RONIC DATAB ASE (WITH THE N OTATI ON “S UMMAR Y ORD ER”). A P ARTY CITIN G TO A SUM MARY ORDER

MUST SERVE A COPY OF IT ON A

NY PARTY N OT RE PRESE NTED BY CO UNSEL . 1 At a state d ter m of the U nited Stat es Co urt o f App eals 2 for t he Se cond Circu it, h eld a t the Thur good Marsh all U nited 3 State s Cou rthou se, 4 0 Fol ey Square, in t he Ci ty of New York, 4 on th e 22 day of Au gust, two thous and s event een. n d 5 6 PRESE NT: 7 8 DENNI S JAC OBS, 9 BARRI NGTON D. PARKER , 10 Circu it Ju dges, 11 JANE A. RE STANI , 12 Judge .* 13

_____

_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____ __ 14 15 CENTRO DE LA COMUNID AD HI SPANA 16 DE LO CUST VALLE Y, TH E WORKPLAC E 17 PROJE CT 18 Plain tiffs -Coun ter-D efendants- Appel lees , 19 20 v. 15-29 14 21 22 THE T OWN O F OYS TER B AY, J OHN 23 VENDI TTO, Town Super visor of t he 24 Town of Oy ster Bay, 25 Defen dants -Coun ter-C laima nts-A ppell ants . 26

_____

_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____ __ 27 28 * Jan e A. Resta ni, Judge for t he Un ited State s Cou rt of 29 Inter natio nal T rade, sitt ing b y des ignat ion.1

2 3 FOR D EFEND ANTS: Jonat han S innre ich, Sinnr eich 4 Kosak off & Mess ina L LP, C entra l 5 Islip , NY. 6 7 FOR P LAINT IFFS: Arthu r Eis enber g, Jo rdan Wells , 8 Marik o Hir ose, New Y ork C ivil 9 Liber ties Union Foun datio n, Ne w 10 York, NY; Alan Levin e, Ja ckson 11 Chin, Lati no Ju stice PRLD EF, N ew 12 York, NY. 13 14 UPO N DUE CONSI DERAT ION of this appea l from the Unite d 15 State s Distr ict Court of the Easte rn Distr ict of N e w Y o rk 16 (Hurl ey, J . ) , it is hereb y ORDER ED, ADJUD GED, AND DECRE ED 17 that the o rder of th e dis trict cour t is AFFIR MED. 18 Defen dants -Ap p e l l a nts The Town of Oyste r Bay and John 19 Vendi tto (toge ther, the “Town ”) appea l from an order of the 20 Unite d State s Distr ict Court of the Easte rn Di s trict of New 21 York (Hurl ey, J. ) enter ing summa r y j u dgmen t in favor of 22 Plain tiffs
. See Centr o de L a C omuni dad Hispa na de Locus t 1 23 Valle y v. Town o f Oy s t e r Bay , 128 F. Supp. 3d 597 (E.D. N.Y. 24 2015)
. We assum e the parti es ’ famil iarit y with the 25 under lying facts , the proce dural histo ry of the c a s e, and 26 the i ssues on a ppeal .

The Town raise s sever al chall enges to the distr ict court ’s summa ry judgm ent 1 rulin g, most of which are resol ved in an opini on issue d simul taneo usly with this order . We resol ve here only the Town’ s chall enge relat ed to the distr ict court ’s entry of a prot ectiv e ord er. 21 The Town chall enges the distr ict court ’s entry of a

2 prote ctive order that limit ed the in f ormat ion that 3 Plain tiffs — organ izati ons advoc ating for a n d compr ised of 4 day labor ers — were requi red to produ ce about their day 5 labor er–me mbers . S e e Centr o de la Comun idad Hispa na de 6 Locus t V

a l l e y v . Town of Oyste r Bay , 954 F. Supp. 2d 127, 7 139-4 5 (E.D. N.Y. 2 0 1 3 ) . The Town claim s that the 8 infor matio n pre clude d fro m dis cover y by the p rotec tive order 9 would have allow ed it “to obtai n criti cal evide nce mater ial 10 and neces sary to de f e n d this case. ” Br. of Appel lants at 11 44. I n fac t, it argu es th at “t he da y lab orers them selve s are 12 clear ly the singl e most knowl edgea ble poten tial witne s s es 13 conce rning vi r t ually all of the mater ial facts at issue .” 14 B r . of Appel lants at 44. In light of the foreg oing, t h e 15 Town argue s tha t the dist rict court abus ed it s dis creti on in 16 enter ing t he pr otect ive o rder. 2 17

In fact, the Town goes so far to argue that summa ry judgm ent denie d it due

2 proce ss in ligh t of the p rotec tive order . Br . of Appel lants at 4 4–45. We are aware of no case in which summa ry judgm ent was held to viola te due p r o cess becau se of a di scove ry li mitat ion. Rega rdles s, th e sin gular case cite d by the Town to suppo rt its due proce ss a r g u m e n t intim ates that such a due proce ss chall enge would call for a revie w of the under lying disco very rulin g for an abuse of discr etion
. Colum bus-Am. Disco very Grp. v. Atl. Mut. Ins. Co. , 974 F.2d 450, 470 (4th Cir. 1992)
. This is the same stand ard we would apply to a direc t revie w of the entry of the prot e ctive order . Lederman v. N.Y.C . Dep’t of Parks and Recre ation , 731 F.3d 199, 202 (2d Cir. 201 3 ) . Accor dingl y, it is irrel evant wheth er the Town’ s chall enge is const rued as a due proce ss chall enge t o t he summa ry judgm ent rulin g or a direc t appea l of the entry of the prote ctive order . 31 The Town’ s chall enge fails b e c a u se the Town canno t

2 show, as i t mus t, th at ev en if the distr ict c ourt abuse d its 3 discr etion in e n terin g the prote ctive order (whic h it did 4 not), that the prote ctive orde r pre judic ed th e Tow n. See 28 5 U.S.C . § 2 111; Fed. R. Ci v. P. 61. We a ffirm on t his g round 6 alone . 3
7 The Town argue s that the prote ctive order precl uding 8 disco very that it sough t preju diced it s a bilit y to prove 9 that (i) Plain tiffs lacke d s tandi ng; (ii) the speec h 10 restr icted b y the Ordin ance does not “conc ern lawfu l 11 activ ity”; and (iii) the Ordin a n c e other wise survi ves 12 Centr al Hudso n . Becau se infor matio n as to the Plain tiffs ’ 13 membe rs could not have mater ially affec ted the analy sis of 14 those issue s, there was no error in grant ing the pr o tecti ve 15 order . 16

The distr ict court concl uded that compe lled discl osure of Plain tiffs ’ membe rs

3 would adver sely impac t Plain tiffs ’ First Amend ment assoc iatio nal right s. 954 F. Supp. 2d at 139-4 5. We make no state ment as to the merit s of that concl usion in light of the “fund ament al and longs tandi ng princ iple of judic ial restr aint [that ] requi res court s avoid reach ing const ituti onal quest io n s i n advan ce of the neces sity of decid ing them. ” Lyng v. Nw. India n Cemet ery Prote ctive Ass’n , 485 U.S. 439, 445 ( 1988)
.

41 First , Plain tiffs do not asser t injur ies of their

2 membe rs (or of day labor ers) t o suppo rt stand ing. Rathe r, 3 Plain tiffs ’ th e o ry of stand ing is premi sed upon injur y to 4 the o rgani zatio ns th emsel ves. See , e.g. , Nnebe v. D aus , 644 5 F.3 d 147, 156-5 7 (2d Cir. 2011)
. Disco very into their 6 membe rship woul d not have alte red t he re levan t ana lysis
. 7 Secon d , infor matio n as to the Plain tiffs ’ membe rs 8 could not have shown that the speec h r estri cted by the 9 Ordin ance does not “ conce rn la wful activ ity” for p urpos es of 10 Centr al Hudso n . A s discu ssed in the major ity opini on, the 11 Ordin ance prohi bits speec h tha t pro poses no i llega l con duct, 12 which is s uffic ient to es tabli sh th at th e spe ech t arget ed by 13 the o rdina nce “ conce rns l awful acti vity. ” See S weden burg v. 14 Kelly , 358 F.3d 223 (2d Cir. 2004) , rev’d on unr e l ated 15 groun ds , 544 U.S. 460 (2005 ). Again , infor mati o n a s to a 16 limit ed set of day labor ers would not h a v e a f fecte d that 17 analy sis. 4

Alter nativ ely, the Town argue s that we manda te d the discl osure precl uded by 4 the prote ctive order in our earli er rulin g in this case, Centr o de La Comun idad Hispa na de Locus t Valle y v. Town of Oyste r Bay , 420 F. App’x 97 (2d Cir. 2011)
. T h e Town reads our decis ion too broad ly. There , we faced the unusu al ta s k o f asses sing the grant of a preli minar y injun ction with no factu al recor d. Never thele ss, the parti es mad e factu al argum ents. Given that we had no facts befor e us, we refus ed to make an “enti rely hypot hetic al” rulin g, stati ng that for

51 Third , no infor m a t ion from Plain tiffs ’ membe rs would

2 have affec ted the remai ning Centr al Hudso n analy sis. T h e 3 Town neede d no infor matio n about those me m bers to docum ent 4 the “traf fic, safet y , and healt h” hazar ds cause d by the day 5 labor ers becau se the lower co urt (and our major ity opini on) 6 credi ted t he To wn’s asser ted i ntere sts i n its Centr al Hu dson 7 analy sis. Nor would info rmati on ab out w hat “ speec h [th e day 8 labor ers] actua lly e ngage in,” Br. of Ap pella nts a t 45, have 9 been helpf ul to addre ss Centr al Hudso n ’ s narro wness 10 requi remen t. T h e O rdina nce is not limit ed to the speec h of 11 t h e Plain tiffs ’ membe rs speci fical ly or to day labor ers 12 gener ally. Rathe r, it bro a d ly limit s “soli citat ions of 13 emplo yment ” by anyon e in Oyste r Bay. In the main opini on, 14 the m ajori ty there by concl uded that the Ordin ance is 15 uncon stitu tiona l becau se it could be appli ed t o a broad 16 swath of indiv idual s that p o s e n o risk to the Town’ s

us to resol ve the quest ion we would “have t o r e m a n d for . . . a heari ng to deter mine, preli minar ily, wheth er and to what degre e the barre d speec h is ‘rela ted to illeg al activ ity.’ ” Id. at 99–10 0 (quot ing Centr al Hudso n , 447 U.S. at 564). Howev er, we then expre ssly held that the distr ict court need not even hold that heari ng, if, in its discr etion , it deter mines it unnec essar y. Such a h earin g ultim ately becam e unnec essar y upon the distr ict court ’s (corr ect ) concl usion t h a t the face of the Ordin ance makes it clear that the restr icted speec h con cerns lawf ul ac tivit y. C onseq uentl y, th e dis trict cour t was corr ect in de termi ning the d iscov ery s ought was unnec essar y.

61 asser ted inter e s t s . Accor dingl y, there was no infor matio n

2 about Plain tiffs ’ membe r s t h at would have affec ted the 3 const ituti onal analy sis o f the Ordi nance . 4 For the foreg oing reaso ns, the r u l i n g of the distr ict 5 court is A FFIRM ED. 6 7 FOR T HE CO URT: 8 Cathe rine O’Hag an Wo lfe, Clerk 9 10

7