New York Civil Liberties Union v. New York State Office of Court Administration

Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division — First Department

Date Filed: Dec. 6, 2023

Background: In 2021, the New York Civil Liberties Union submitted a public records request to the New York State Office of Court Administration seeking memoranda the agency had sent to judges providing guidance on the interpretation and application of judicial precedent and statutes. The request included the Crawford Memorandum, a document that guided judges in deciding a high-profile case about whether persons facing an order of protection could be removed from their homes without a hearing.

The OCA denied NYCLU’s request for the records. It argued that the request was overly broad and that the records were exempt from disclosure under two provisions of New York’s Freedom of Information Law: one that shields “intra-agency” materials, and another that protects attorney work product as privileged. The NYCLU filed an administrative appeal, which an appeals officer largely denied. NYCLU then filed a lawsuit against the OCA.

In October 2022, a New York trial court ruled in the NYCLU’s favor, ordering the OCA to produce the requested records. The court held that the request was not overly broad and that the records were not shielded from public disclosure as intra-agency communications or as attorney work product.

The OCA appealed to the New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division — First Department, arguing that the records are categorically exempt from disclosure under FOIL’s exemption for inter-agency or intra-agency materials that reflect predecisional deliberations.

Our Position: The appeals court should affirm the trial court’s decision requiring the OCA to turn over the requested records.

• The memoranda withheld by the OCA — communications with the judiciary — are not exempt as inter-agency or intra-agency communications because the judiciary is expressly not an agency under FOIL.
• OCA’s expansive interpretation of FOIL’s exemption for deliberations within covered agencies, if accepted, would undermine news reporting in the public interest.
• Agencies cannot disregard FOIL’s requirement that they timely respond to requests for records that are “reasonably described, ” a standard that ensures agencies have sufficient information to identify the records in question. An agency cannot reject a reasonably described request with general claims that it is burdensome.

Quote: “The public has an interest in understanding the functioning of New York’s legal system and, specifically, an interest in understanding how the OCA interprets and summarizes precedent for use by the judiciary. To keep New Yorkers informed about the justice system, journalists need access to public records like those at issue here.”