Source: http://kirschenbaumesq.com/article/flaherty-v-giambra-2004-wl-816906-wdny2004-jan-27-2004-united-states-district-court-wd-new-york
Timestamp: 2019-04-25 15:45:50+00:00

Document:
Peter J. Cosgrove, Peter J. Crotty, Don Dally, John DeFranks, Jorge S.
Frank, Anthony L. Fumerelle, Colleen Curtin Gable, Lauren Gauthier, Mario A.
Giacobbe, Paul J. Glascott, Amy J. Goldstein, Karen Greenspan, Gary W.
Hackbush, Jeffrey J. Hagen, Marcy H. Hagen, Louis A. Haremski, Raymond C.
Herman, Jr., Frank T. Housh, Thomas P. Hurley, Wendy R. Irene, Rosanne E.
Johnson, Cydney A. Kelly, David S. Kelly, Joseph L. Kilbridge, Daniel M.
Killelea, Brian M. Klebba, Thomas D. Kubiniec, J. Patrick Lennon, Sharon M.
Rooth III, Mark A. Sacha, Robert A. Scharlock, Paul E. Scharmach, John G.
Calvo Torres, Thomas D. Trbovich, Holly P. Tucker, Yvonne Vertlieb, Louis P.
Violanti, Candace K. Vogel, Pauline C. Will, Paul J. Williams III, Lisa M.
FN1. This decision may be cited in whole or in any part.
and 4- 7 and page EC0015 of document 3.
FN3. Nat'l Congress for Puerto Rican Rights v. City of New York, 194 F.R.D.
Housing & Urban Dev., 929 F.2d 81, 84 (2d Cir.1991)); see also Tigue v. U.S.
FN4. DiPace, supra note 2, at 403.
FN5. Cipolla v. Cty. of Rensselaer, 2001 WL 1223489, at *2 (N.D.N.Y.2001).
FN7. Nat'l Congress, supra note 3, at 92 (quoting Grand Cent. P'shp, Inc. v.
Cuomo, 166 F.3d 473, 482 (2d Cir.1999)).
(S.D.N.Y.1997) (citations and internal quotations omitted).
citation omitted); see also Resolution Trust Corp. v. Diamond, 137 F.R.D.
policy, as opposed to the formulation of a new policy").
separable from the privileged portion of a document should be disclosed."
FN10. Hopkins, supra note 3, at 84.
FN12. Hopkins, supra note 3, at 85.
FN14. LNC Invs., supra note 8, at *2 (citing Hopkins, supra note 3, at 85).
competent to assess the confidential nature of the agency's documents."
procedural requirements in a non-FOIA context).
FN16. LNC Invs., supra note 8, at *2.
FN17. LNC Invs., supra note 8, at *2.
FN18. LNC Invs., supra note 8, at *2.
government in the litigation and issues involved).
U.S. 683, 705, 94 S.Ct. 3090, 41 L.Ed.2d 1039 (1974)); see also Manzi v.
the defendants' privilege log in light of the principles discussed above.
and 2 (EC0013-EC0014) because these documents are not "deliberative."
Indeed, documents 1 and 2 contain purely factual information.
principles of the DPP analysis. See note 3 supra.
FN24. EC0015 contains budget forecasts, i.e., factual data. Cf.
Documents 5 [FN27] and 6 were generated after the 2002 budget was adopted.
factual data rather than opinions or recommendations protected by the DPP.
State Comptroller H. Carl McCall.
FN28. See Manzi, supra note 21, at 131.
defendants, only page EC0016 may be withheld pursuant to the DPP.
Michael J. FLAHERTY, Jr., Eugene P. Adams, Joseph A. Agro, Mark D. Arcara,Randy G. Attea, James F. Bargnesi, Christopher J. Belling, Diana M. Boccio,Timothy P. Bridge, Catherine A. Carey, Kenneth F. Case, Melissa M. Chiasera,Peter J. Cosgrove, Peter J. Crotty, Don Dally, John DeFranks, Jorge S.DeRosas,John C. Doscher, G. Michael Drmacich, Daniel DuBois, Susan Etu Eagan, RobertC.Figliola, Thomas M. Fininerty, John J. Flynn, Thomas E. Fowler, Jr., LaurieA.Frank, Anthony L. Fumerelle, Colleen Curtin Gable, Lauren Gauthier, Mario A.Giacobbe, Paul J. Glascott, Amy J. Goldstein, Karen Greenspan, Gary W.Hackbush, Jeffrey J. Hagen, Marcy H. Hagen, Louis A. Haremski, Raymond C.Herman, Jr., Frank T. Housh, Thomas P. Hurley, Wendy R. Irene, Rosanne E.Johnson, Cydney A. Kelly, David S. Kelly, Joseph L. Kilbridge, Daniel M.Killelea, Brian M. Klebba, Thomas D. Kubiniec, J. Patrick Lennon, Sharon M.LoVallo, Jason C. Luna, J. Michael Marion, Latonia D. Gaston Marsh, JosephJ.Marusak, Michael I. McCabe, Michael J. McHale, Brian P. McNamara, StevenMeyer,Donna A. Milling Marion Miskovski, Joseph M. Mordino, Molly J. Musarra,JosephA. Muscato, Diane T. O'Gorman, Diane L. Oak, Judith G. Olin, Kelley A. Omel,Brian K. Parker, Glenn Pincus, Paul S. Piotrowski, Frederick J. Platek, Jr.,Brandon A. Portis, Lynette M. Reda, Emilia Rodriguez, Lisa M. Rodwin, WalterL.Rooth III, Mark A. Sacha, Robert A. Scharlock, Paul E. Scharmach, John G.Schoemick, Denise M. Schunke, Lawrence M. Schwegler, Frank J. Sedita, DanielR.Slade, Tina M. Stanford, Douglas P. Stiller, Letizia P. Tagliafierro, BettyCalvo Torres, Thomas D. Trbovich, Holly P. Tucker, Yvonne Vertlieb, Louis P.Violanti, Candace K. Vogel, Pauline C. Will, Paul J. Williams III, Lisa M.Yaeger and Barry A. Zavah, Plaintiffs,v.Joel A. GIAMBRA, Erie County Executive, County Legislature of Erie County,Leonard R. Lenihan, Erie County Personnel Commissioner, and County of Erie,Defendants.No. 02-CV-0243E(SR).Jan. 27, 2004.Ellen Dichner, Gladstein, Reif & Meginniss, LLP, New York, NY, forPlaintiffs.Steven B. Sheinwald, Kirschenbaum & Kirschenbaum, P.C., Garden City, NY, forDefendant.
ELFVIN, J.*1 This Court has been asked to resolve a discovery dispute between theparties. Defendants refused to produce certain documents on the basis of thedeliberative process privilege ("the DPP"). [FN2] Plaintiffs objected for avariety of reasons, including the purported inapplicability of the DPP. Forthe foregoing reasons, defendants shall be required to produce documents 1-2and 4- 7 and page EC0015 of document 3.
FN2. See, e.g., DiPace v. Goord, 218 F.R.D. 399, 403 (S.D.N.Y.2003)(discussing the DPP).
FN3. Nat'l Congress for Puerto Rican Rights v. City of New York, 194 F.R.D.88, 92 (S.D.N.Y.2000) (citing Hopkins v. U.S. Dep't ofHousing & Urban Dev., 929 F.2d 81, 84 (2d Cir.1991)); see also Tigue v. U.S.Dep't of Justice, 312 F.3d 70, 76 (2d Cir.2002) ("In order for a document tobe protected by [the DPP], it must be: (1) an inter-agency or intra-agencydocument; (2) 'predecisional'; and (3) deliberative."). Although manydecisions addressing the DPP, including Hopkins, involved the Freedom ofInformation Act ("FOIA"), they nonetheless inform the DPP analysis in thenon-FOIA context. See Azon v. Long Isl. R.R., 2001 WL 1658219, at *1(S.D.N.Y.2001) (citing Hopkins and other FOIA caselaw in the non-FOIAcontext).
FN6. Nat'l Congress, supra note 3, at 92 (quoting Hopkins, supra, note 3)(internal quotations omitted).
FN7. Nat'l Congress, supra note 3, at 92 (quoting Grand Cent. P'shp, Inc. v.Cuomo, 166 F.3d 473, 482 (2d Cir.1999)).
FN8. LNC Invs., Inc. v. Republic of Nicar., 1997 WL 729106, at *1(S.D.N.Y.1997) (citations and internal quotations omitted).
FN9. Grand Cent. P'shp, supra note 7, at 482 (internal quotations andcitation omitted); see also Resolution Trust Corp. v. Diamond, 137 F.R.D.634, 641 (S.D.N.Y.1991) (holding that the DPP does not cover "materialsrelated to the explanation, interpretation or application of an existingpolicy, as opposed to the formulation of a new policy").
FN11. Hopkins, supra note 3, at 84-85 (internal quotations and citationomitted).
FN13. Resolution Trust, supra note 9, at 641 ("The exercise of judgment inthe formulation of a factual statement is not sufficient to lift it to thelevel of deliberation. The privilege also does not extend tomaterials related to the explanation, interpretation or application of anexisting policy, as opposed to the formulation of a new policy.") (citationomitted); see also Rao v. New York City Health & Hosps. Corp., 1993 WL307860, at *1 (S.D.N.Y.1993) (noting that the DPP "does not extend toworking law communications, i.e., explanations of an existing decision,purely factual matters or factual data which can be severed from adeliberative memorandum or report") (internal quotations and citationomitted).
FN15. See, e.g., Rao, supra note 13, at *1-2 (applying the DPP proceduralrequirements to state entities); Mary Imogene Bassett Hosp. v. Sullivan, 136F.R.D. 42, 44 (N.D.N.Y.1991) (requiring federal agency to satisfy the DPPprocedural requirements in a non-FOIA context).
FN19. Herman v. The Crescent Publ'g Group, 2000 WL 1371311, at *3(S.D.N.Y.2000).
FN20. LNC Invs., supra note 8, at *2 (noting that courts mayconsider factors including (1) the interest of the private litigant; (2) theneed for accurate judicial fact-finding; (3) the relevance of the evidencesought; (4) the availability of other evidence; and (5) the role of thegovernment in the litigation and issues involved).
FN21. Grand Cent. P'shp, supra note 7, at 481 (quoting U.S. v. Nixon, 418U.S. 683, 705, 94 S.Ct. 3090, 41 L.Ed.2d 1039 (1974)); see also Manzi v.DiCarlo, 982 F.Supp. 125, 130 (E.D.N.Y.1997) (noting that the DPP isdesigned "to protect the decision making processes of the executive branchby shielding the intra-agency memoranda reflecting recommendations anddeliberations about governmental policies.").
FN22. Dep't of the Interior v. Klamath Water Users ProtectiveAss'n, 532 U.S. 1, 8-9, 121 S.Ct. 1060, 149 L.Ed.2d 87 (2001) (internalquotations and citation omitted).
Assuming arguendo that defendants have satisfied the proceduralrequirements, if any, required for application of the DPP, [FN23] this Courtmakes the following findings with respect to documents 1 through 7 listed inthe defendants' privilege log in light of the principles discussed above.First, defendants will be required to produce documents 1 (EC0001-EC00012)and 2 (EC0013-EC0014) because these documents are not "deliberative."Indeed, documents 1 and 2 contain purely factual information.
FN23. It is not clear that the procedural requirements from FOIA exemption 5cases are applicable in the non-FOIA context - as opposed to the substantiveprinciples of the DPP analysis. See note 3 supra.
FN24. EC0015 contains budget forecasts, i.e., factual data. Cf.Manzi, supra note 21, at 131 ("These documents contain primarily factualinformation regarding Senator DiCarlo's proposed budget or contemplatedexpenditures and are thus outside the deliberative process privilege.")(emphasis added).
FN25. Inasmuch as EC0016 appears irrelevant to this action, plaintiffs'interest in disclosure is outweighed by the defendants' interest inpreserving privilege.
FN26. The fact that document 4 was a formal report to the County Legislatureand the County Executive demonstrates that this document is not a draft orthe type of proposal covered by the DPP. This Court is aware of no decisionextending the DPP to protect communications sent to multiple branches ofgovernment - as opposed to inter-agency communications. The same holds truewith respect to document 7, a report to the County Executive from formerState Comptroller H. Carl McCall.
FN27. Document 5 was previously published, further undermining defendant'sclaim of privilege. See, e.g.,www.erie.gov/depts/government/comptroller/press072402.phtml.
FN29. In other words, of the 195 pages of documents withheld by thedefendants, only page EC0016 may be withheld pursuant to the DPP.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.

 v. 
 v.

 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.