## Facts

- After demonstrations during the 2004 Republican National Convention in New York City, multiple individuals (including Hacer Dinler and others) were arrested, detained, and fingerprinted.
- In preparation for the convention, the NYPD Intelligence Division gathered intelligence on groups it believed might engage in disruptive or violent conduct.
- Undercover officers attended meetings and events and created “Field Reports” (about 1,800 pages) describing observations and undercover activity; the NYPD also created synthesized “end user reports.”
- Plaintiffs brought federal civil-rights claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and related state-law claims challenging the City’s RNC-related policies and practices.
- In discovery, plaintiffs sought production of the undercover Field Reports as relevant to their claims.
- The City opposed production, asserting a qualified law enforcement privilege based on risks of exposing techniques, strategies, and sources.

## Issues

1. Whether the NYPD undercover Field Reports were protected from disclosure by the qualified law enforcement privilege.
2. Whether the district court’s order compelling production so misapplied the privilege that the extraordinary remedy of mandamus was warranted.
3. What procedures and limits should govern any disclosure when the privilege is asserted but the requesting party claims a need for the material.

## Decision

- The Second Circuit granted the City’s mandamus petition in part and denied it in part.
- The court held the law enforcement privilege applied to the undercover Field Reports.
- The court concluded the district court’s discovery order did not adequately protect the privilege, even though it contemplated redactions and disclosure limited to counsel under a protective order.
- The court vacated or modified the compelled-disclosure order to the extent it insufficiently safeguarded law enforcement interests and remanded with instructions for a more protective approach to any review and production.

## Legal Principles

- The law enforcement privilege is qualified, not absolute; courts must balance the government’s confidentiality interests against the requesting party’s need for the information.
- The privilege protects, among other interests: law enforcement techniques and procedures, confidential sources, safety of personnel and witnesses, and the integrity of ongoing and future investigations.
- In balancing disclosure, relevant considerations include the material’s relevance and importance to the claims, availability of alternative evidence, the seriousness of the litigation, the government’s role as a party, and the degree of harm likely from disclosure.
- Mandamus is a drastic remedy requiring a clear and indisputable right to relief and lack of an adequate alternative; compelled disclosure of sensitive law-enforcement material may justify mandamus because confidentiality cannot be restored after production.

## Conclusion

The Second Circuit treated NYPD undercover Field Reports as privileged law-enforcement intelligence and used mandamus to require substantially tighter controls on any civil discovery of such materials, emphasizing both careful balancing and strong protection against disclosure that could reveal methods or sources.


In re City of New York, 607 F.3d 923 (2d Cir. 2010)