Case: Floyd v. City of New York

1:08-cv-01034 | U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York

Filed Date: Jan. 31, 2008

Case Ongoing

Clearinghouse coding complete

Case Summary

COVID-19 Summary: This is an ongoing case to challenge the constitutionality of the NYPD's stop and frisk practices, in which the plaintiffs filed an emergency motion calling for a moratorium and investigation of NYPD's alleged discriminatory enforcement of social distancing policy. No outcome yet on plaintiffs' motion.This is one of four ongoing cases challenging the constitutionality of the New York Police Department's "Stop and Frisk" program. See Ligon v. City of New York (PN-NY-0014); Dani…

COVID-19 Summary: This is an ongoing case to challenge the constitutionality of the NYPD's stop and frisk practices, in which the plaintiffs filed an emergency motion calling for a moratorium and investigation of NYPD's alleged discriminatory enforcement of social distancing policy. No outcome yet on plaintiffs' motion.


This is one of four ongoing cases challenging the constitutionality of the New York Police Department's "Stop and Frisk" program. See Ligon v. City of New York (PN-NY-0014); Daniels v. City of New York (PN-NY-0010); Davis v. City of New York (PN-NY-0013).

On January 31, 2008, four African-American men who had been stopped and frisked in the City of New York brought this class § 1983 suit against the City in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. The plaintiffs, represented by the Center for Constitutional Rights ("CCR") and private counsel, asked the court for declaratory, injunctive, and monetary relief, claiming that the City had engaged in unconstitutional racial profiling. Specifically, the plaintiffs claimed that the City had implemented and was continuing to enforce, encourage and sanction a policy and practice of unconstitutional "stop and frisks" by the New York Police Department ("NYPD"), targeting black and Latino residents without the reasonable articulable suspicion required by the Fourth Amendment. The case was assigned to Judge Shira A. Scheindlin.

The CCR previously litigated the same issue in Daniels v. City of New York, No. 1:99-cv-01695 (PN-NY-0010), eventually reaching a settlement agreement with the City in 2003 that required the NYPD to establish a written policy against racial profiling and to submit data on its stop-and-frisks quarterly to the CCR until 2007. When the CCR came to the conclusion that the data demonstrated a continued unconstitutional use of race in deciding whom to stop and frisk, it filed this action. On the same day that the complaint was filed, the court granted an expedited motion by the plaintiffs to retain documentation that the City had produced as defendant in Daniels and that they still held.

On June 2, 2008, the plaintiffs filed a motion to compel discovery of other City documents with information on stop-and-frisks, including documents that plaintiffs had returned to the City under the terms of the Daniels settlement. The court granted the motion on September 10, compelling the disclosure of all documentation desired by the plaintiffs except for the names or individuals stopped by the police and the names of reporting or reviewing officers. Floyd v. City of N.Y., No. 1:08-cv-01034, 2008 WL 4179210, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 68798 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 10, 2008).

Discovery disputes continued over the course of the next three years. On May 21, 2009, the City requested sanctions against one of the plaintiffs for spoliation and perjury, and on March 15, 2010, the plaintiffs moved for sanctions against the defendants for failing to comply with the Court's discovery orders. (No resolution to the City's request appears on the docket, and the plaintiffs withdrew their motion for sanctions without prejudice to renewal on June 24.) On June 25, 2010, the court ordered the City to continue making disclosures on ongoing Internal Affairs Bureau investigations of claims of racial quotas being used by the NYPD. Floyd v. City of N.Y., 739 F. Supp. 2d 376 (S.D.N.Y. 2010).

On February 24, 2011, the City moved for summary judgment, and on August 31 the court granted in part and denied in part the City's motion. Floyd v. City of N.Y., 813 F. Supp. 2d 417 (S.D.N.Y. 2011). It held that the City was entitled to summary judgment on one of the plaintiff's individual claims, but not on the claims made by other plaintiffs or on the class claims of racial profiling under Title VI and the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments. The plaintiffs moved for reconsideration, and on November 23, 2011, the court found that new evidence presented by plaintiffs created a dispute of fact that called into question the reasonableness of the NYPD's stop-and-frisk, and thus reinstated the plaintiff's individual claims. Floyd v. City of N.Y., 813 F.Supp.2d 457 (S.D.N.Y. 2011).

Discovery disputes continued, and the City moved to exclude the testimony of Columbia professor Jeffrey Fagan. The Court for the most part denied the City's motion on April 16, 2012, admitting Fagan's disparate treatment analysis, much of his reasonable suspicion analysis, a modified version of his classification system, and his opinion regarding the results of the NYPD's stop-and-frisk policy. Floyd v. City of N.Y., No. 1:08-cv-01034, 2012 WL 1344514, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 53249 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 16, 2012).

On May 16, 2012, the court granted class certification. Floyd v. City of N.Y., No. 1:08-cv-01034, 2012 WL 1868637, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 68676 (S.D.N.Y. May 16, 2012). On October 10, 2012, a three-judge panel in the Second Circuit Court of Appeals (Judge John M. Walker, Jr. and Judge Christopher F. Droney) denied the City's motion to appeal the District Court's grant of class certification.

The case headed to bench trial before Judge Scheindlin. On January 22, 2013, the court granted the City's request for a stay pending a final decision regarding the appropriate scope of preliminary injunctive relief in Ligon, but denied postponement of the trial. The plaintiffs agreed to dismiss their individual damage claims, so trial proceeded on the class-based injunctive issues, only. That trial began in March 2013; proceedings took over 30 days, and concluded in May 2013. In July, the U.S. Department of Justice appeared in the case by filing a "Statement of Interest". Represented by the Civil Rights Division (not the U.S. Attorney, which ordinarily represents the U.S. in the Southern District of New York). The DOJ took no position on whether the NYPD should be held liable, but opined that a monitorship-type remedy was often useful and certainly authorized, in systemic police misconduct cases.

On August 12, 2013, following the nine-week trial, Judge Scheindlin held that the City of New York violated the plaintiffs' rights under the Fourth Amendment and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Judge Scheindlin issued two opinions finding the NYPD liable, ordering changes to the department's stop and frisk procedures, and appointing a monitor to oversee the changes. Floyd v. City of New York, 959 F.Supp.2d 540 (S.D.N.Y. 2013) and 959 F.Supp.2d 668 (S.D.N.Y. 2013). Judge Scheindlin held that the NYPD violated the plaintiffs' Fourth Amendment rights, due to the department officials' deliberate indifference regarding the officers' clearly unconstitutional searches and the fact that the searches were so widespread that they held the force of law. Further, the NYPD violated the plaintiffs' Fourteenth Amendment rights by subjecting them to the indirectly racially-targeted searches and by displaying deliberate indifference to the discriminatory nature of these searches. In other words, Judge Scheindlin found that the searches violated the plaintiffs' Fourteenth Amendment rights regardless of whether the disparate result of the search policy was intentional.

Beyond the findings of law, Judge Scheindlin also issued an order setting forth the procedures that the NYPD must adopt to remedy the situation. The order mandated that a monitor would be appointed to oversee reforms and consult with the parties to develop "a set of reforms of the NYPD's policies, training, supervision, monitoring, and discipline regarding stop and frisk." As a monitor, she chose a former New York Corporation Counsel and former First Assistant District Attorney in Manhattan.

On October 31, 2013, the Second Circuit granted the City’s motion for a stay and ordered that the cases be reassigned from Judge Scheindlin to another district judge. The Second Circuit wrote that the "District Judge ran afoul of the Code of Conduct for United States Judges" in (a) speaking to the press and (b) encouraging the plaintiffs' counsel in Daniels to file the Floyd litigation, separately, rather than litigating racial profiling as part of Daniels—particularly in stating that she would treat the new case as related. 538 F. App'x 101 (2d Cir. 2013).

After the Second Circuit ruled, both Floyd and Ligon were reassigned (as related) to District Judge Analisa Torres. On November 13, 2013, the Court of Appeals rejected Judge Scheindlin's motion asking to be heard on the disqualification issue and clarified the reason for reassigning the case. The Second Circuit held that the rationale for the reassignment was an appearance of impropriety, not its actual presence. 736 F.3d 118 (2d Cir. 2013).

In the meantime, NYC Mayor Bill de Blasio was elected, and took a very different approach to these cases. The city moved for limited remand from the Second Circuit to the district court for the purpose of exploring settlement. On February 21, 2014, the Second Circuit granted the City’s motion to remand to the district court to explore settlement for 45 days. The Second Circuit declined to decide the police unions' motion to intervene, preferring to let the district court decide that motion first. 743 F.3d 362 (2d Cir. 2014).

On March 4, 2014, the parties informed Judge Torres that they had “reached an agreement in principle for resolving the City's appeals in both Floyd and Ligon. The City agreed to substantially comply with the injunctive relief set forth in Judge Scheindlin's August 12, 2013, remedial order, subject to the parties' application to Judge Torres to limit the term of the court-appointed monitor to three years. When the monitor’s term ended, the City agreed to authorize the Inspector General of the NYPD to take over monitoring and reporting responsibilities. The parties agreed that the agreement could be terminated once the City had maintained compliance for two years. On July 30, 2014, Judge Torres granted the parties' joint motion to modify the remedial order and to enter it as an embodiment of their agreements.

On July 30, 2014, Judge Torres also issued an order denying the police unions' motions to intervene, finding, inter alia, that the motions were untimely and that the police unions did not assert a legally protectable interest. 302 F.R.D. 69 (S.D.N.Y. 2014). The police unions appealed.

However, on August 6, 2014, with the consent of the plaintiffs in Floyd and Ligon, the City moved to voluntarily dismiss its remaining appeals, with prejudice, stating that the parties had reached an agreement that resolved all the issues raised by the City's appeals in both Floyd and Ligon, and cleared the way for the parties to begin the remedial process and settlement negotiations. On October 31, 2014, the Second Circuit granted the City’s request to voluntarily dismiss all appeals, with prejudice. In addition, the Second Circuit held that the unions’ motions to intervene were untimely and that the unions failed to establish legally protectable interests, as required to allow intervention. 770 F.3d 1051 (2d Cir. 2014).

The parties continued to work with the monitor on developing appropriate reforms. On February 3, 2015, Judge Torres issued an order regarding the procedure for the monitor to develop and the City to implement the reforms of NYPD’s stop-and-frisk activities. The monitor would consult with the parties to create a final recommendations for the implementation of remedies. Then, the court would approve or deny the final recommendations.

First, on February 23, 2015, the monitor submitted and Judge Torres approved, a memo that was read by the NYPD at 10 consecutive roll calls in all precincts detailing the reforms ordered by Judge Scheindlin in Floyd. The memo was also posted in police stations and provided to all officers. The document detailed the constitutional standards governing stop and frisks, explicitly prohibited racial profiling by police, ordered officers to include a narrative explanation for stops in their UF250 forms, and ordered the start of a pilot program outfitting police officers with body cameras.

Meanwhile, on March 18, 2015, the City suggested a way for all five police unions to participate in the remedial process. Under the City's approach, the City would share proposals with the unions before providing them to the monitor and the plaintiffs. The unions could then offer their comments, which the City would convey to the monitor. This approach would afford the unions an opportunity to inform the monitor of their viewpoints before the monitor reached conclusions and submitted the final recommendations to the Court. On March 19, 2015, Judge Torres issued an order approving this framework.

On August 7, 2015, the monitor submitted his final recommendations for reforms on racial profiling and street encounters. The new racial profiling policy imposed a categorical prohibition on racial and national origin profiling; it also prohibited other forms of biased policing not covered in the NYPD’s current policy, such as profiling on the basis of religion, gender identity or expression, sexual orientation, and housing status. The new street encounters policy regarding placed clearer legal limits on stops and frisks. It required supervisory review of officer conduct to ensure compliance with the Constitution. On August 24, 2015, Judge Torres approved the final recommendations.

On December 8, 2015, Judge Torres issued an order modifying the remedial order’s requirement that NYPD institute a pilot project in which body-worn cameras would be used for a one-year period. Judge Torres modified the order so that the NYPD would use a randomized experimental design for the body-worn camera pilot program.

On January 24, 2017, the parties reached a settlement of attorneys' fees and costs. The City paid $10,430,000.00 for plaintiffs' counsel fees and $820,000.000 for costs and expenses to class counsel for the period from the beginning of the case to October 31, 2014. The City was ordered to continue to pay counsel fees, costs, and expenses accrued from November 1, 2014 until the Court's jurisdiction in the matter had terminated.

The input process under the Joint Remedial Order ended in April 2017, at which the parties and community stakeholders began discussion of Joint Remedial Process reform proposals. On January 10, 2018, stating that the parties had reached an impasse regarding the Joint Remedial Process, the plaintiffs requested a status conference. Judge Torres ordered on January 29, 2018, that the Facilitator of the Joint Remedial Process submit a draft of his Final Report to the parties. The parties did not reach a consensus on the Joint Process Reforms.

On April 18, the New York Times published an op-ed previously submitted by Plaintiff's counsel which stated that “The problem is the police department suggested that it might oppose reforms that black and Latino New Yorkers are asking for. As much as the department wants to be seen as listening to community members, it doesn’t actually want to be responsive to their needs.”

On May 15, 2018, the Facilitator of the Joint Remedial Process issued the Final Report and Recommendations on the Joint Remedial Process pursuant to the Court's Remedial Order. The Facilitator made fourteen reform recommendations, including: creation of permanent structures for officer conduct feedback; preparation of a monthly NYPD discipline report and increased transparency around police disciplinary processes; body-worn camera use; recording of Level 1 and Level 2 encounters; improved citizen access to stop reports; community engagement; development of a public education campaign; implementation of annual community surveys; adherence to policies regarding youth interactions and cultivation of confidential informants; mental health and disability training; LGBTQ-specific training and community engagement; and extension of the Criminal Justice Reform Act of 2016 to allow civil summons to be the primary trespass enforcement tool; and trauma-informed training.

In their June 8, 2018 comment on the joint remedial process reforms, the plaintiffs requested that the court enter an order requiring the City to implement the Facilitator’s recommendations with certain modifications.

On July 19, 2018, the court ordered the parties to submit a proposal for a pilot program, overseen by the Monitor, to study the electronic recording of first-and second-level police-citizen encounters and record findings on low-level police-citizen encounters. In August, the court further ordered that the proposed program study the use of body-worn cameras (BWCs) in first-level encounters.

On November 20, 2018, Judge Torres issued an order requiring the NYPD to, after consultation with the monitor, "submit for approval a plan to implement 'a program for systematically receiving, assessing, and acting on information regarding adverse findings on the conduct of police officers involving illegal stops or illegal trespass enforcements'" by January 7, 2019.

On January 14, 2019, the City submitted a plan to comply with the court's November 20 order. The proposed plan included gathering information in five categories:

  • Declinations to Prosecute
  • Suppression Decisions
  • Adverse Credibility Findings
  • Law Department Refusals to Indemnify
  • Civil Judgments Due to Malfeasance
The City stated that the information gathered in these categories would be weighted "as part of a buildup to thresholds which, when crossed, will trigger a broader review of an individual officer at the Risk Management Bureau level with a view toward imposing any additional necessary remedial action." Plaintiffs submitted a response to the submitted plan, highlighting several concerns with the proposal. First, plaintiffs asserted that the proposal did not provide an effective early intervention mechanism; "The City’s proposal fails to present a feedback mechanism to focus resources toward at-risk officers before a problem has major impact on the community." Moreover, plaintiffs contended that the proposed plan lacked the required "community input and perspectives as part of an early intervention system." Finally, plaintiffs asserted that the data should be available to the public.

After the Monitor submitted a proposed pilot program on January 29, 2019, the court approved the pilot program on February 7. The proposed study was "designed to study how electronic documentation and the use of BWCs affect the legality of police-citizen encounters . . . The pilot program will study the effects of observer presence by comparing the behavior of officers while under observation with their behavior while unobserved."

On May 6, the court approved a fee stipulation for the period between February 24, 2017, and May 31, 2018, by which the City agreed to pay attorneys' fees and expenses totaling $1,186,194.54.

On June 14, the Monitor requested the court to enter a confidentiality order, shielding aspects of the pilot program from plaintiffs and the public. Plaintiffs objected to the confidentiality order, stating that the "pilot documents a fundamentally public activity for the purposes of this litigation" and that "Plaintiffs and stakeholders require access to the underlying data." The City and several District Attorney’s Offices, as amici curiae, noted that the confidentiality order presented grave constitutional and statutory concerns. On August 12, the court ordered the Monitor's proposed confidentiality order without modification and without addressing legal or factual issues raised by any of the plaintiffs or amici.

On September 9, plaintiffs filed a motion for reconsideration of the court's confidentiality order, stating that the "Court overlooked relevant facts, controlling law, and the likelihood of a manifest injustice in summarily granting the Monitor’s request for an additional confidentiality order." The court denied plaintiffs' motion for reconsideration on October 25, 2019.

On May 26, 2020, plaintiffs filed an emergency motion for relief, alleging that the NYPD's discriminatory social-distancing enforcement practices in response to the COVID-19 outbreak in New York City violated the court's orders, the NYPD’s Court-approved racial profiling policy, and the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments. Plaintiffs asserted that 81% of social distancing summonses were issued to black and latinx people - "a rate nearly identical to the racial disparity in stops that led to this Court’s 2013 finding that the NYPD engaged in widespread and systemic Equal Protection – and for which there does not appear to be any plausible race-neutral explanation." Moreover, plaintiffs asserted that NYPD had generally not enforced social distancing in white neighborhoods, "despite large gatherings and persistently crowded parks, bars, and religious schools or ceremonies." Furthermore, plaintiffs alleged that NYPD refused to share information about its policies or practices and did not respond to plaintiffs' requests. Plaintiffs requested that the Monitor to conduct an investigation into the NYPD's social-distancing enforcement practices, an order compelling discovery concerning social distancing enforcements, and an order to show cause why an order should not be issued finding defendants in violation of the court's orders. The plaintiffs also requested "temporarily enjoining any further social distancing enforcement actions by the NYPD pending further order of this Court." Defendant is scheduled to file a response to the emergency motion by June 8.

Following several meetings held in February 2020, on May 28 the parties submitted their plans to implement the early intervention program ordered by the court in November 2018. While the parties agreed on many aspects of the program, there remained some disagreements. On June 2, the court issued an order laying out the details of the program, the manner and scope of information to be collected by the NYPD, and the assessment and intervention mechanisms to be implemented.

The case is ongoing.

Summary Authors

Emily Goldman (10/31/2012)

Jonathan Forman (8/15/2013)

Jessica Kincaid (4/1/2016)

Sarah McDonald (8/3/2018)

Aaron Gurley (6/2/2020)

Related Cases

Daniels v. City of New York, Southern District of New York (1999)

Blair v. City of New York, Southern District of New York (2008)

Davis v. City of New York, Southern District of New York (2010)

Ligon v. City of New York, Southern District of New York (2012)

People

For PACER's information on parties and their attorneys, see: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/4339720/parties/floyd-v-the-city-of-new-york/


Judge(s)

Cabranes, José Alberto (Connecticut)

Cave, Sarah L. (New York)

Droney, Christopher Fitzgerald (Connecticut)

Parker, Barrington Daniels Jr. (New York)

Pitman, Henry B. (New York)

Scheindlin, Shira A. (New York)

Torres, Analisa Nadine (New York)

Walker, John Mercer Jr. (New York)

Attorneys(s) for Plaintiff

Azmy, Baher (New York)

Borchetta, Jennifer Rolnick (New York)

Judge(s)

Cabranes, José Alberto (Connecticut)

Cave, Sarah L. (New York)

Droney, Christopher Fitzgerald (Connecticut)

Parker, Barrington Daniels Jr. (New York)

Pitman, Henry B. (New York)

Scheindlin, Shira A. (New York)

Torres, Analisa Nadine (New York)

Walker, John Mercer Jr. (New York)

Attorneys(s) for Plaintiff

Azmy, Baher (New York)

Borchetta, Jennifer Rolnick (New York)

Cartagena, Juan (New York)

Charney, Darius (New York)

Concepcion, Roberto Jr. (New York)

Corey, Bruce Oliver Jr. (New York)

Costello, Andrea Hope (Florida)

Day, Dominique (New York)

Droubi, Luna (New York)

Dunn, Christopher (New York)

Farah, Omar (New York)

Flahive Wu, Laura Marie (New York)

George, Daniel A. (District of Columbia)

Grashin, Mayer Benjamin (New York)

Hellerman, Eric (New York)

Hoffman, Taylor (New York)

Hoff Varner, Gretchen Ann (New York)

Irwin, Philip Alexander (New York)

Karteron, Alexis (New York)

Kleinman, Rachel Miriam (New York)

Kovel, Mariana Louise (New York)

Lumelsky, Anna Esther (New York)

Maer, Foster (New York)

Martini, Kasey Lynn (New York)

Moore, Jonathan C. (New York)

Moskovitz, Joshua Samuel (New York)

Mullkoff, Daniel Erick (New York)

Nathanson, John A. (New York)

Patel, Sunita (New York)

Pendergrass, Taylor Scott (New York)

Peterson, Tiana Jeanne (New York)

Rahman, Shakeer (New York)

Smyth, J. McGregor Jr. (New York)

Wilson, Britney (New York)

Young, Chauniqua Danielle (New York)

Attorneys(s) for Defendant

Anakhu, Joy Tolulope (New York)

Booth, Amatullah Khaliha (New York)

Breslow, Stephanie Marie (New York)

Cooke, Brenda Elaine (New York)

Cooper, David Allen (New York)

Donahue, Linda (New York)

Grossman, Heidi (New York)

Hazan, David M. (New York)

Kunz, Morgan David (New York)

Larkin, Arthur G. III (New York)

Marutollo, Joseph Anthony (New York)

Mettham, Suzanna Publicker (New York)

Publicker, Suzanna Hallie (New York)

Reddy, Prathyusha Bandi (New York)

Richardson, Lisa Marie (New York)

Silver, Cecilia Ann (New York)

Vickers, Judson Krebbs (New York)

Weingarten, Richard Keith (New York)

Zuckerman, Mark (New York)

Other Attorney(s)

Austin, Roy L. (District of Columbia)

Coles, Anthony Paul (New York)

Dorsen, Norman (New York)

Engel, Steven A. (District of Columbia)

Fitzgerald, Christopher Hikaru (New York)

Gilbert, Michael J. (New York)

Kubek, Gary W. (New York)

Lopez, Christy (District of Columbia)

McGuire, James M. (New York)

Miller, Arthur R. (Massachusetts)

Neuborne, Burt (New York)

Oliver, Gideon Orion (New York)

Perez, Thomas E. (District of Columbia)

Rankin, David Bruce (New York)

Ray, Lindsay Elizabeth (New York)

Resnik, Judith (Connecticut)

Saleski, Courtney Gilligan (Pennsylvania)

Schaeffer, Jarrod Lee (New York)

Schwarz, Frederick A.O. Jr. (New York)

Smith, Jonathan Mark (District of Columbia)

Volek, Jude (District of Columbia)

Wiygul, Elisa Talora (Pennsylvania)

Expert/Monitor/Master

Belen, Ariel E. (New York)

Braga, Anthony A (New Jersey)

Chandler, Cassandra (District of Columbia)

Eberhardt, Jennifer (California)

Jerome, Richard B. (District of Columbia)

Long, Demosthenes (New York)

MacDonald, John (Pennsylvania)

McCabe, James (Connecticut)

Perlov, Jane (North Carolina)

Yates, James (New York)

Zimroth, Peter L. (New York)

Documents in the Clearinghouse

Document

1:08-cv-01034

Docket [PACER]

June 2, 2020

June 2, 2020

Docket
2

1:08-cv-01034

Order Granting Plaintiffs' Expedited Motion to Retain Data Under Protective Order in Daniels et al v. The City of New York et al and Request for Conference

Jan. 31, 2008

Jan. 31, 2008

Order/Opinion
50

1:08-cv-01034

Second Amended Class Action Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief and Individual Damages

Oct. 20, 2008

Oct. 20, 2008

Complaint
108

1:08-cv-01034

Opinion and Order [Granting Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel Disclosure of Internal Affairs Bureau Documents]

739 F.Supp.2d 376

June 25, 2010

June 25, 2010

Order/Opinion
153

1:08-cv-01034

Opinion and Order [Granting in Part and Denying in Part Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment]

813 F.Supp.2d 417

Aug. 31, 2011

Aug. 31, 2011

Order/Opinion
171

1:08-cv-01034

Opinion and Order [Granting Plaintiffs' Motion to Reinstate Claims]

813 F.Supp.2d 457

Nov. 23, 2011

Nov. 23, 2011

Order/Opinion
201

1:08-cv-01034

Opinion and Order [Granting in Part and Denying in Part Defendants' Motion to Exclude Expert Testimony]

861 F.Supp.2d 274, 2012 WL 1344514, 2012 U.S.Dist.LEXIS 53249

April 16, 2012

April 16, 2012

Order/Opinion

[Letter from Police Commissioner Kelly to City Council Speaker Quinn]

[No case name}

No Court

May 16, 2012

May 16, 2012

Correspondence
206

1:08-cv-01034

Opinion and Order [Granting Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification]

283 F.R.D. 153, 2012 WL 1868637, 2012 U.S.Dist.LEXIS 68676

May 16, 2012

May 16, 2012

Order/Opinion
209

1:08-cv-01034

Order

Floyd v. The City of New York

June 4, 2012

June 4, 2012

Order/Opinion

Resources

Docket

See docket on RECAP: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/4339720/floyd-v-the-city-of-new-york/

Last updated May 30, 2022, 3:12 a.m.

ECF Number Description Date Link Date / Link
1

COMPLAINT against Goodman(New York City, in his official capacity), Goodman(in his official capacity), Jane Doe, Jane Doe, John Does(New York City, 1 and 2, in their official capacity), John Does(1 and 2, individually), The City of New York, Raymond Kelly(New York City Police, in his official capacity), Raymond Kelly(individually), Michael Bloomberg(in his official capacity), Michael Bloomberg(individually), Rodriguez(New York City, in his official capacity), Rodriguez(individually). (Filing Fee $ 350.00, Receipt Number 640181)Document filed by David Floyd, Lalit Clarkson.(mbe) (jpo). (Entered: 02/01/2008)

Jan. 31, 2008

Jan. 31, 2008

RECAP

SUMMONS ISSUED as to Goodman(New York City, in his official capacity), Goodman(in his official capacity), Jane Doe, Jane Doe, John Does(New York City, 1 and 2, in their official capacity), John Does(1 and 2, individually), The City of New York, Raymond Kelly(New York City Police, in his official capacity), Raymond Kelly(individually), Michael Bloomberg(in his official capacity), Michael Bloomberg(individually), Rodriguez(New York City, in his official capacity), Rodriguez(individually). (mbe)

Jan. 31, 2008

Jan. 31, 2008

PACER

CASE REFERRED TO Judge Shira A. Scheindlin as possibly related to 1:99-cv-1695. (mbe)

Jan. 31, 2008

Jan. 31, 2008

PACER

Case Designated ECF. (mbe)

Jan. 31, 2008

Jan. 31, 2008

PACER
2

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS' EXPEDITED MOTION TO RETAIN DATA UNDER PROTECTIVE ORDER IN DANIELS, et al. v. THE CITY OF NEW YORK, et al. AND REQUEST FOR CONFERENCE: That that motion is GRANTED. Plaintiffs shall retain the UF-250 data, all information derived therefrom and all other materials in their possession and control which refer to such information, until, at least, such time as the Court has held a conference and rendered a ruling on a complete record concerning Plaintiffs' request that the UF-250 data produced under the Stipulation of Settlement in Daniels, should be retained by Plaintiffs' counsel and should not be subject to a protective order in this case. A conference is scheduled for Feb. 6, 2008 at 3:30pm. ( Status Conference set for 2/6/2008 at 03:30 PM before Judge Shira A. Scheindlin.) (Signed by Judge Shira A. Scheindlin on 1/31/08) (tro) (Entered: 02/01/2008)

Jan. 31, 2008

Jan. 31, 2008

RECAP

CASE ACCEPTED AS RELATED. Create association to 1:99-cv-01695-SAS-HBP. Notice of Assignment to follow. (mbe)

Feb. 15, 2008

Feb. 15, 2008

PACER
4

NOTICE OF CASE ASSIGNMENT to Judge Shira A. Scheindlin. (mbe) (Entered: 02/21/2008)

Feb. 15, 2008

Feb. 15, 2008

RECAP

Magistrate Judge Henry B. Pitman is so designated. (mbe)

Feb. 15, 2008

Feb. 15, 2008

PACER
5

ENDORSED LETTER addressed to Judge Shira A. Scheindlin from Linda Donahue dated 2/25/08 re: Request that City defendants time to respond to the complaint be extended to 4/10/08. ENDORSEMENT: Request granted. Defendant's time to move or answer is extended to 4/10/08. No further extensions. SO ORDERED. The City of New York answer due 4/10/2008. (Signed by Judge Shira A. Scheindlin on 2/26/08) (db) (Entered: 02/26/2008)

Feb. 26, 2008

Feb. 26, 2008

RECAP
6

ORDER RE INITIAL PRETRIAL CONFERENCE: Initial Conference set for 4/7/2008 at 04:30 PM in Courtroom 15C, 500 Pearl Street, New York, NY 10007 before Judge Shira A. Scheindlin. (Signed by Judge Shira A. Scheindlin on 3/3/08) (cd) (Entered: 03/04/2008)

March 3, 2008

March 3, 2008

RECAP
7

TRANSCRIPT of proceedings held on 2/06/2008 before Judge Shira A. Scheindlin. (ama) (Entered: 03/13/2008)

March 13, 2008

March 13, 2008

PACER
8

ORDER FOR ADJOURNMENT OF INITIAL CONFERENCE: The Initial Conference scheduled for 4/7/2008 at 4:30 PM is adjourned until 4/16/2008 at 4:00 PM before Judge Shira A. Scheindlin. (Signed by Judge Shira A. Scheindlin on 4/4/08) (tro) (Entered: 04/04/2008)

April 4, 2008

April 4, 2008

RECAP
9

ORDER, plaintiffs shall have until 4/14/08, to file an Amended Complaint on or before 5/14/08, and defendants shall have until 5/14/08, to file an Answer to the Amended Complaint, in lieu of filing an Answer to the pending Complaint. Goodman(New York City, in his official capacity) answer due 5/14/2008; Goodman(in his official capacity) answer due 5/14/2008; Jane Doe answer due 5/14/2008; Jane Doe answer due 5/14/2008; John Does(New York City, 1 and 2, in their official capacity) answer due 5/14/2008; John Does(1 and 2, individually) answer due 5/14/2008; The City of New York answer due 5/14/2008; Raymond Kelly(New York City Police, in his official capacity) answer due 5/14/2008; Raymond Kelly(individually) answer due 5/14/2008; Michael Bloomberg(in his official capacity) answer due 5/14/2008; Michael Bloomberg(individually) answer due 5/14/2008; Rodriguez(New York City, in his official capacity) answer due 5/14/2008; Rodriguez(individually) answer due 5/14/2008.( Amended Pleadings due by 4/14/2008.) (Signed by Judge Shira A. Scheindlin on 4/9/08) (cd) (Entered: 04/10/2008)

April 9, 2008

April 9, 2008

RECAP
10

ORDER re plaintiffs' request to file the unredacted Amended Complaint in this case under seal, the request is granted. Plaintiffs shall file the unredacted Amended Complaint in this case with the Clerk of Court as soon as practicable. The Clerk of the Court is directed to accept for filing the redacted version plaintiffs' Amended Complaint via the CM/ECF system and the file under seal the unredacted version of the Amended Complaint. (Signed by Judge Shira A. Scheindlin on 4/11/08) (cd) (Entered: 04/14/2008)

April 14, 2008

April 14, 2008

RECAP
11

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT amending 1 Complaint,, against Hayes, Salerno, Popichurdo, John Doe #2, John Doe #1, Kelly, Joyce, Hernandez, Jane Doe, Goodman(in his official capacity), The City of New York, Raymond Kelly(New York City Police, in his official capacity), Raymond Kelly(individually), Michael Bloomberg(in his official capacity), Michael Bloomberg(individually), Rodriguez(individually).Document filed by David Floyd, Lalit Clarkson. Related document: 1 Complaint,, filed by David Floyd, Lalit Clarkson.(dle) (dle). (Entered: 04/16/2008)

April 15, 2008

April 15, 2008

RECAP
13

SCHEDULING ORDER: Factual Discovery due by 1/16/2009. Final Pretrial Conference set for 2/2/2009 at 04:30 PM before Judge Shira A. Scheindlin. 3 week jury trial. (Signed by Judge Shira A. Scheindlin on 4/16/08) (cd) (Entered: 04/17/2008)

April 17, 2008

April 17, 2008

RECAP
14

ORDER REFERRING CASE TO MAGISTRATE JUDGE. Order that case be referred to the Clerk of Court for assignment to a Magistrate Judge for Settlement. Referred to Magistrate Judge Henry B. Pitman. (Signed by Judge Shira A. Scheindlin on 4/16/08) (cd) (Entered: 04/17/2008)

April 17, 2008

April 17, 2008

RECAP
15

ORDER: It is hereby ordered that the request is GRANTED. Plaintiffs shall file their motion to compel by May 31, 2008; Defendants shall file and serve their opposition to Plaintiff's motion to compel by June 30, 2008; and Plaintiffs shall file their reply in further support of their motion to compel by July 15, 2008. Additionally a hearing on the proposed motion is scheduled for May 5, 2008 at 2:30 p.m. (Signed by Judge Shira A. Scheindlin on 4/21/2008) (jpo) (Entered: 04/21/2008)

April 21, 2008

April 21, 2008

RECAP
16

AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE. The City of New York served on 2/29/2008, answer due 5/14/2008; Michael Bloomberg(in his official capacity) served on 2/28/2008, answer due 5/14/2008. Service was accepted by Tamekia Mendes-Gammons and Lisa Moore. Document filed by David Floyd; Lalit Clarkson. (Costello, Andrea) (Entered: 04/22/2008)

April 22, 2008

April 22, 2008

RECAP

***NOTE TO ATTORNEY TO E-MAIL PDF. Note to Attorney Andrea Costello, Jonathan Moore, Darius Charney for noncompliance with Section (3) of the S.D.N.Y. 3rd Amended Instructions For Filing An Electronic Case or Appeal and Section 1(d) of the S.D.N.Y. Procedures For Electronic Case Filing. E-MAIL the PDF for Document 11 Amended Complaint,, to: case_openings@nysd.uscourts.gov. (dle)

April 23, 2008

April 23, 2008

PACER
17

ENDORSED LETTER addressed to Judge Shira A. Scheindlin from Jonathan Moore dated 5/1/08 re: Counsel for plaintiff request that the hearing be adjourned to May 14, 2008, or any date thereafter which is convenient for the Court. ENDORSEMENT: Request granted Hearing adjourned to May 19 at 11:30 a.m. So Ordered. (Signed by Judge Shira A. Scheindlin on 5/1/08) (js) (Entered: 05/02/2008)

May 1, 2008

May 1, 2008

RECAP
18

ANSWER to Amended Complaint with JURY DEMAND. Document filed by The City of New York. Related document: 11 Amended Complaint,, filed by David Floyd, Lalit Clarkson.(Hazan, David) (Entered: 05/13/2008)

May 13, 2008

May 13, 2008

RECAP
19

FILING ERROR - ELECTRONIC FILING FOR NON-ECF DOCUMENT - MOTION for Extension of Time to Serve Complaint (LETTER). Document filed by David Floyd, Lalit Clarkson.(Charney, Darius) Modified on 5/19/2008 (jar). (Entered: 05/16/2008)

May 16, 2008

May 16, 2008

RECAP

***NOTE TO ATTORNEY THAT THE ATTEMPTED FILING OF Document No. 19 HAS BEEN REJECTED. Note to Attorney Darius Charney : THE CLERK'S OFFICE DOES NOT ACCEPT LETTERS FOR FILING, either through ECF or otherwise, except where the judge has ordered that a particular letter be docketed. Letters may be sent directly to a judge. (jar)

May 19, 2008

May 19, 2008

PACER
20

ENDORSED LETTER addressed to Judge Shira A. Scheindlin from Darius Charney dated 5/27/08 re: Plaintiffs request to have until 30 days from the date on which counsel for the City provides Plaintiffs with sufficient identifying information on (certain individual) defendants to effect service. Counsel for the City consents to this extension. ENDORSEMENT: Plaintiffs may have an extension of time in which to serve certain individual defendants until 30 days after the City provides identifying information. (Signed by Judge Shira A. Scheindlin on 5/27/08) (cd) (Entered: 05/28/2008)

May 28, 2008

May 28, 2008

RECAP
21

ORDER: Now, therefore It is hereby ordered that the request is GRANTED. Plaintiffs shall file unredacted Memorandum of Law in Support of their Motion to Compel Discovery and exhibits to the Declaration of Andrea Costello under seal. The Clerk of the Court is hereby directed to accept for filing the redacted versions of the Memorandum of Law in Support of Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel Discovery and exhibits to the Declaration of Andrea Costello vis the CM/ECF system in the above captioned action and to file under seal, the unredacted versions of these documents. ENDORSEMENT: Plaintiffs may file their motion June 2, 2008. Defendants accordingly will have one extra business day to file their opposition. (Signed by Judge Shira A. Scheindlin on 5/29/08) (js) (Entered: 05/30/2008)

May 30, 2008

May 30, 2008

RECAP
23

MOTION to Compel Discovery. Document filed by David Floyd, Lalit Clarkson. Return Date set for 7/3/2008 at 11:00 AM.(Charney, Darius) (Entered: 06/02/2008)

June 2, 2008

June 2, 2008

RECAP
24

MEMORANDUM OF LAW in Support re: 23 MOTION to Compel Discovery.. Document filed by David Floyd, Lalit Clarkson. (Charney, Darius) (Entered: 06/02/2008)

June 2, 2008

June 2, 2008

RECAP
25

DECLARATION of Andrea Costello in Support re: 23 MOTION to Compel Discovery.. Document filed by David Floyd, Lalit Clarkson. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 2-3, # 3 Exhibit 4, # 4 Exhibit 5-9, # 5 Exhibit 10A, # 6 Exhibit 10B, # 7 Exhibit 11-12, # 8 Exhibit 13)(Charney, Darius) (Entered: 06/02/2008)

2 Exhibit 1

View on PACER

3 Exhibit 2-3

View on PACER

4 Exhibit 4

View on PACER

5 Exhibit 5-9

View on PACER

6 Exhibit 10A

View on PACER

7 Exhibit 10B

View on PACER

8 Exhibit 11-12

View on PACER

9 Exhibit 13

View on PACER

June 2, 2008

June 2, 2008

RECAP
26

TRANSCRIPT of proceedings held on 5/19/2008 before Judge Shira A. Scheindlin. (ama) (Entered: 06/03/2008)

June 3, 2008

June 3, 2008

PACER
27

AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE. Raymond Kelly(New York City Police, in his official capacity) served on 5/29/2008, answer due 6/18/2008; Michael Bloomberg(individually) served on 5/29/2008, answer due 6/18/2008. Service was accepted by Amanda Gonzalez for Bloomberg and Tara Oupoli for Kelly. Service was made by Mail service also completed on 6/5/08. Document filed by David Floyd; Lalit Clarkson. (Costello, Andrea) (Entered: 06/05/2008)

June 5, 2008

June 5, 2008

RECAP

Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Shira A. Scheindlin: Interim Pretrial Conference held on 6/12/2008. (pl)

June 12, 2008

June 12, 2008

PACER
28

ANSWER to Amended Complaint with JURY DEMAND. Document filed by Raymond Kelly(New York City Police, in his official capacity), Raymond Kelly(individually), Michael Bloomberg(in his official capacity), Michael Bloomberg(individually). Related document: 11 Amended Complaint,, filed by David Floyd, Lalit Clarkson.(Hazan, David) (Entered: 06/18/2008)

June 18, 2008

June 18, 2008

RECAP
29

DECLARATION of Jennifer Rossan in Opposition re: 23 MOTION to Compel Discovery.. Document filed by The City of New York. (Hazan, David) (Entered: 06/26/2008)

June 26, 2008

June 26, 2008

RECAP
30

MEMORANDUM OF LAW in Opposition re: 23 MOTION to Compel Discovery.. Document filed by The City of New York. (Hazan, David) (Entered: 06/26/2008)

June 26, 2008

June 26, 2008

RECAP
31

ORDER It is hereby ordered that the request is granted. Defendants shall file the unredacted memorandum of law in opposition to plaintiffs motion to compel discovery and the declaration of Jennifer Rossan with exhibits under seal. The clerk is hereby directed to accept for filing the redacted versions of the memorandum of law in opposition to plaintiffs motion to compel discovery and the declaration of Jennifer Rossan and exhibits under seal via the CM/ECF system in the above captioned action and to file, under seal, the unredacted versions of these documents. re: 30 Memorandum of Law in Opposition to Motion filed by The City of New York (Signed by Judge Shira A. Scheindlin on 6/27/08) (mme) (Entered: 06/27/2008)

June 27, 2008

June 27, 2008

RECAP
34

REPLY MEMORANDUM OF LAW in Support re: 23 MOTION to Compel Discovery. of UF-250 Data and Information Subject to the Protective Order in Daniels and Memorandum in Opposition to Defendants' Application for a Protective Order. Document filed by Deon Dennis, David Floyd, Lalit Clarkson. (Costello, Andrea) (Entered: 07/08/2008)

July 8, 2008

July 8, 2008

RECAP
35

DECLARATION of Darius Charney in Support re: 23 MOTION to Compel Discovery.. Document filed by Deon Dennis, David Floyd, Lalit Clarkson. (Costello, Andrea) (Entered: 07/08/2008)

July 8, 2008

July 8, 2008

RECAP
36

ENDORSED LETTER addressed to Judge Shira A. Scheindlin from Andrea Costerllo dated 8/7/2008 re: Counsel respectfully request a conference with the Court to address the need for a protective order concerning the disclosure, maintenance and use of the certain sensitive personal identifying information. ENDORSEMENT: The plaintiff's request is hereby granted. A conference is hereby scheduled for 2:00 p.m., on Thursday August 14, 2008 in Courtroom 15C. So Ordered. (Signed by Judge Shira A. Scheindlin on 8/7/2008) (jfe) (Entered: 08/07/2008)

Aug. 7, 2008

Aug. 7, 2008

RECAP
37

AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE. Salerno served on 7/29/2008, answer due 8/18/2008. Service was accepted by Officer Morales. Service was made by mail. Document filed by Deon Dennis; David Floyd; Lalit Clarkson. (Costello, Andrea) (Entered: 08/19/2008)

Aug. 19, 2008

Aug. 19, 2008

RECAP
38

AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE. Popichurdo served on 7/29/2008, answer due 8/18/2008. Service was accepted by Officer Morales. Service was made by mail. Document filed by Deon Dennis; David Floyd; Lalit Clarkson. (Costello, Andrea) (Entered: 08/19/2008)

Aug. 19, 2008

Aug. 19, 2008

RECAP
39

AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE. Hayes served on 7/29/2008, answer due 8/18/2008. Service was accepted by Officer Morales. Service was made by mail. Document filed by Deon Dennis; David Floyd; Lalit Clarkson. (Costello, Andrea) (Entered: 08/19/2008)

Aug. 19, 2008

Aug. 19, 2008

RECAP
40

AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE. Joyce served on 7/30/2008, answer due 8/19/2008. Service was accepted by Officer Murray. Service was made by mail. Document filed by Deon Dennis; David Floyd; Lalit Clarkson. (Costello, Andrea) (Entered: 08/19/2008)

Aug. 19, 2008

Aug. 19, 2008

RECAP
41

AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE. Kelly served on 7/30/2008, answer due 8/19/2008. Service was accepted by Officer Murray. Service was made by mail. Document filed by Deon Dennis; David Floyd; Lalit Clarkson. (Costello, Andrea) (Entered: 08/19/2008)

Aug. 19, 2008

Aug. 19, 2008

RECAP
42

MOTION for Andrea Costello to Withdraw as Attorney. Document filed by Deon Dennis, David Floyd, Lalit Clarkson.(Costello, Andrea) (Entered: 08/19/2008)

Aug. 19, 2008

Aug. 19, 2008

RECAP
43

ANSWER to Amended Complaint with JURY DEMAND. Document filed by Salerno, Popichurdo, Kelly, Joyce, Hernandez. Related document: 11 Amended Complaint,, filed by David Floyd, Lalit Clarkson.(Hazan, David) (Entered: 08/21/2008)

Aug. 21, 2008

Aug. 21, 2008

RECAP
44

ANSWER to Amended Complaint with JURY DEMAND. Document filed by Hayes. Related document: 11 Amended Complaint,, filed by David Floyd, Lalit Clarkson.(Hazan, David) (Entered: 08/22/2008)

Aug. 22, 2008

Aug. 22, 2008

RECAP
45

OPINION AND ORDER #96490: For the reasons described above, plaintiffs' motion is granted as to all data except the names and contact information of individuals who were stopped by the police and the names of the reporting and reviewing officers. Other personal identifying information in the database, or information in the database, or information that could lead to the disclosure of an individual's identity, must be produced but shall remain confidential under a protective order. The Clerk of the Court is directed to close this motion (docket #23). A conference is scheduled for September 25 at 4:00 p.m. So Ordered. (Signed by Judge Shira A. Scheindlin on 9/9/08) (js) Modified on 9/12/2008 (rw). (Entered: 09/10/2008)

Sept. 10, 2008

Sept. 10, 2008

RECAP
46

NOTICE OF CHANGE OF ADDRESS by Andrea Hope Costello on behalf of Deon Dennis, David Floyd, Lalit Clarkson. New Address: Florida Institutional Legal Services, 12921 S.W. 1st Road, Ste. 107, #346, Newberry, FL, United States 32669, 352-375-2494, ext. 1012. (Costello, Andrea) (Entered: 09/19/2008)

Sept. 19, 2008

Sept. 19, 2008

PACER
47

ORDER:Plaintiffs are granted leave to file a Second Amended Class Action Complaint. Plaintiffs are directed to file said Complaint by October 24, 2008. The Clerk of the Court is hereby directed to file plaintiffs' Second Amended Class Action Complaint upon receipt. SO ORDERED. ( Amended Pleadings due by 10/24/2008.) (Signed by Judge Shira A. Scheindlin on 9/23/2008) (tve) (Entered: 09/23/2008)

Sept. 23, 2008

Sept. 23, 2008

PACER
48

FILING ERROR - ELECTRONIC FILING FOR NON-ECF DOCUMENT - MOTION for Reconsideration re; 45 Memorandum & Opinion. Document filed by The City of New York. (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit Declaration of Captain Joseph Pascarella)(Hazan, David) Modified on 9/26/2008 (jar). (Entered: 09/24/2008)

2 Affidavit Declaration of Captain Joseph Pascarella

View on PACER

Sept. 24, 2008

Sept. 24, 2008

PACER

***NOTE TO ATTORNEY THAT THE ATTEMPTED FILING OF Document No. 48 HAS BEEN REJECTED. Note to Attorney David Hazan : THE CLERK'S OFFICE DOES NOT ACCEPT LETTERS FOR FILING, either through ECF or otherwise, except where the judge has ordered that a particular letter be docketed. Letters may be sent directly to a judge. REMINDER: When correctly re-filing Motion for Reconsideration, Supporting Documents are filed individually. Use event type Declaration in Support found under Replies, Oppositions, Supporting Documents. (jar)

Sept. 24, 2008

Sept. 24, 2008

PACER
49

MEMO ENDORSEMENT on 42 Motion to Withdraw as Attorney. ENDORSEMENT: Request granted. The Clerk of the Court is directed to close this motion (No. 42). So Ordered. (Signed by Judge Shira A. Scheindlin on 9/25/2008) (jpo) (Entered: 09/26/2008)

Sept. 26, 2008

Sept. 26, 2008

PACER
50

SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT amending 11 Amended Complaint,, against Christopher Moran, Goodman(New York City, in his official capacity), Jane Doe(New York City, in her official capacity), The City of New York, Hayes, Raymond Kelly(New York City Police, in his official capacity), Salerno, Popichurdo, John Doe #1, Kelly, Joyce, Hernandez, Raymond Kelly(individually), Michael Bloomberg(in his official capacity), Michael Bloomberg(individually), Rodriguez(New York City, in his official capacity). Document filed by David Ourlicht, Deon Dennis, David Floyd, Lalit Clarkson. Related document: 11 Amended Complaint,, filed by David Floyd, Lalit Clarkson.(dle) (Entered: 10/21/2008)

Oct. 20, 2008

Oct. 20, 2008

RECAP
51

ANSWER to Amended Complaint with JURY DEMAND. Document filed by The City of New York, Michael Cousin Hayes, Raymond Kelly(New York City Police, in his official capacity), Angelica Salmeron, Luis Pichardo, James Kelly, Cormac Joyce, Eric Hernandez, Raymond Kelly(individually), Michael Bloomberg(in his official capacity), Michael Bloomberg(individually). Related document: 50 Amended Complaint,, filed by David Floyd, Lalit Clarkson, Deon Dennis, David Ourlicht.(Hazan, David) (Entered: 10/26/2008)

Oct. 26, 2008

Oct. 26, 2008

PACER
52

STIPULATION AND PROTECTIVE ORDER...regarding procedures to be followed that shall govern the handling of confidential material.... (Signed by Judge Shira A. Scheindlin on 10/29/08) (tro) (Entered: 10/30/2008)

Oct. 30, 2008

Oct. 30, 2008

RECAP
53

AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE of Summons and Amended Complaint,,. Christopher Moran served on 10/28/2008, answer due 11/17/2008. Service was accepted by Ms. Hill-Principal. Document filed by Deon Dennis; David Ourlicht; David Floyd; Lalit Clarkson. (Charney, Darius) (Entered: 11/10/2008)

Nov. 10, 2008

Nov. 10, 2008

PACER
54

ANSWER to Amended Complaint with JURY DEMAND. Document filed by Christopher Moran. Related document: 50 Amended Complaint,, filed by David Floyd, Lalit Clarkson, Deon Dennis, David Ourlicht.(Hazan, David) (Entered: 11/12/2008)

Nov. 12, 2008

Nov. 12, 2008

RECAP
55

ORDER: Fact Discovery due by 3/1/2009. Expert Deposition due by 5/1/2009. Final Pretrial Conference set for 3/19/2009 at 04:30 PM before Judge Shira A. Scheindlin. This conference shall also serve as a pre-motion conference for any dispositive motions to be filed by either party. (Signed by Judge Shira A. Scheindlin on 11/17/08) (tro) (Entered: 11/18/2008)

Nov. 18, 2008

Nov. 18, 2008

PACER
56

STIPULATION AND ORDER: Defendants will produce to plaintiffs a sampling consisting of one hundred fifty of the actual photographic images of the UF-250 forms. The photographic images only exist for the 3rd quarter of 2003, the entire year of 2004, and the entire year of 2005. Defendants will proportion the number of images to be selected from the three time periods according to the total number of records from that time period. For example, if one of the three time periods according to the total number or records from that time period. For example, if one of the three time periods has 40% of the total number of records, then defendants will produce sixty photographic images from that time period ($0% of 150). The photographic images are not numbered and will be selected randomly from DVD files. Defendants will redact from the photographic images the identifying information of individuals who were stopped and the names of the reporting and reviewing officers. The parties agree that if defendants inadvertently disclose to plaintiffs information or materials that could be withheld from plaintiffs, in accordance with this Court's Opinion and Order, dated 9/9/08, than plaintiffs' counsel will immediately return the information or material to counsel for defendants. The Clerk of the Court is directed to close this motion (No. 48). (Signed by Judge Shira A. Scheindlin on 11/25/08) (tro) (Entered: 11/25/2008)

Nov. 25, 2008

Nov. 25, 2008

PACER
57

NOTICE OF APPEARANCE by Philip Alexander Irwin on behalf of Deon Dennis, David Ourlicht, David Floyd, Lalit Clarkson (Irwin, Philip) (Entered: 12/05/2008)

Dec. 5, 2008

Dec. 5, 2008

PACER
58

NOTICE OF APPEARANCE by Anna Esther Lumelsky on behalf of Deon Dennis, David Ourlicht, David Floyd, Lalit Clarkson (Lumelsky, Anna) (Entered: 12/05/2008)

Dec. 5, 2008

Dec. 5, 2008

PACER
59

NOTICE OF APPEARANCE by Eric Hellerman on behalf of Deon Dennis, David Ourlicht, David Floyd, Lalit Clarkson (Hellerman, Eric) (Entered: 12/05/2008)

Dec. 5, 2008

Dec. 5, 2008

PACER
60

TRANSCRIPT of proceedings held on September 25, 2008 before Judge Shira A. Scheindlin. (mro) (Entered: 12/11/2008)

Dec. 8, 2008

Dec. 8, 2008

PACER
61

STIPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDER...regarding procedures to be followed that shall govern the handling of confidential material.... (Signed by Judge Shira A. Scheindlin on 1/12/2009) (jfe) (Entered: 01/13/2009)

Jan. 13, 2009

Jan. 13, 2009

RECAP
62

AMENDED SCHEDULING ORDER: Plaintiffs shall identify any expert witness on or before 6/1/09. Defendants shall identify any expert witness on or before 7/1/09. The parties shall complete factual discovery by 9/1/09. Plaintiffs shall serve their expert reports on or before 10/1/09. Expert depositions for both parties shall be completed by 1/15/2010. The Final Pretrial Conference set for 9/15/2009 at 04:30 PM before Judge Shira A. Scheindlin. This conference shall also serve as a pre-motion conference for any dispositive motions to be filed by either party. (Signed by Judge Shira A. Scheindlin on 2/10/09) (tro) (Entered: 02/11/2009)

Feb. 11, 2009

Feb. 11, 2009

PACER

***DELETED DOCUMENT. Deleted document number 63 Amended Scheduling Order. The document was incorrectly filed in this case. (cd)

Feb. 11, 2009

Feb. 11, 2009

PACER
63

ORDER OF DISMISSAL PURSUANT TO FRCP 41(a)(2) that all of Plaintiffs' claims against Defendant New York City Police Officer Michael Cousin Hayes are dismissed without prejudice. (Signed by Judge Shira A. Scheindlin on 4/2/09) (cd) (Entered: 04/03/2009)

April 2, 2009

April 2, 2009

RECAP
64

STIPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDER...regarding procedures to be followed that shall govern the handling of confidential material....SO ORDERED (Signed by Judge Shira A. Scheindlin on 4/6/2009) (jmi) (Entered: 04/07/2009)

April 6, 2009

April 6, 2009

RECAP
65

ENDORSED LETTER addressed to Judge Shira A. Scheindlin from Darius Charney dated 5/26/09 re: Plaintiffs request that the deadline to identify expert witnesses in this case be extended to 7/1/09. ENDORSEMENT: Plaintiffs' request is hereby granted. Plaintiffs must identify their expert witnesses by 7/1/09. Defendants must identify their expert witnesses by 8/1/09. No further extensions will be granted. (Signed by Judge Shira A. Scheindlin on 5/26/09) (cd) (Entered: 05/27/2009)

May 27, 2009

May 27, 2009

PACER
66

STIPULATION AND PROTECTIVE ORDER...regarding procedures to be followed that shall govern the handling of confidential material.... (Signed by Judge Shira A. Scheindlin on 6/8/2009) (jfe) (Entered: 06/09/2009)

June 9, 2009

June 9, 2009

PACER
67

ORDER: On May 21, 2009, defendants submitted a letter request for sanctions against named plaintiff David Ourlicht, based on allegations of spoliation and perjury. Plaintiffs responded by letter dated June 8, 2009. In order to address defendants' request, the Court requires access Ourlicht's Facebook page. Therefore, defendants are hereby ordered to produce to the Court and to plaintiffs' counsel copies of all records of Ourlicht' s Facebook page they presently maintain, including screen captures, print outs, and written notes. Plaintiffs are ordered to produce to the Court and to defendants' counsel a copy of Ourlicht's page as it currently exists. Plaintiffs' production must include Our1icht's "Wall" (including "Older Posts" as far back as are retrievable through Ourlicht's account) and "Info" pages but need not include "Photos," "Boxes," or any application-based pages. This production must be completed by the close of business on Friday, June 12, 2009 and may be faxed or hand-delivered to the Court. (Signed by Judge Shira A. Scheindlin on 6/9/2009) (jfe) (Entered: 06/09/2009)

June 9, 2009

June 9, 2009

PACER
68

TRANSCRIPT of proceedings held on 5/21/09 before Judge Shira A. Scheindlin. (ldi) (Entered: 06/16/2009)

June 16, 2009

June 16, 2009

PACER
69

ORDER: Having reviewed in camera original and redacted versions of the documents that appear in defendants' June 15, 2009 Second Log of Redacted Documents, defendants' redactions are found to be appropriate on the ground of relevancy, with a single exception. Defendants are ordered to produce document NYC_2_00000493 with paragraph "4. Program Deliverables" unredated. (Signed by Judge Shira A. Scheindlin on 6/25/2009) (jfe) (Entered: 06/25/2009)

June 25, 2009

June 25, 2009

PACER
70

NOTICE OF APPEARANCE by Sunita Patel on behalf of Deon Dennis, David Ourlicht, David Floyd, Lalit Clarkson (Patel, Sunita) (Entered: 07/01/2009)

July 1, 2009

July 1, 2009

PACER
71

TRANSCRIPT of proceedings held on June 16, 2009 at 4:52 pm before Judge Shira A. Scheindlin. (eef) (Entered: 07/24/2009)

July 20, 2009

July 20, 2009

PACER
72

NOTICE OF APPEARANCE by Taylor Hoffman on behalf of Deon Dennis, David Ourlicht, David Floyd, Lalit Clarkson (Hoffman, Taylor) (Entered: 07/30/2009)

July 30, 2009

July 30, 2009

PACER
73

ENDORSED LETTER addressed to Judge Shira A. Scheindlin from Jennifer Rossan dated 8/18/2009 re: Defendants respectfully request that they have until August 25, 2009, to respond to both of plaintiffs' letters dated August 17, 2009. ENDORSEMENT: Defendants' request for an extension of time and page limits is granted. Defendants shall submit their response by Monday, August 24, 2009. They are permitted to submit seven and nine page letters. If necessary. A pre-motion conference is scheduled for August 26, 2009 at 5 p.m. So Ordered. (Signed by Judge Shira A. Scheindlin on 8/19/2009) (jfe) (Entered: 08/19/2009)

Aug. 19, 2009

Aug. 19, 2009

PACER
74

NOTICE OF APPEARANCE by Laura Marie Flahive Wu on behalf of Deon Dennis, David Ourlicht, David Floyd, Lalit Clarkson (Flahive Wu, Laura) (Entered: 08/25/2009)

Aug. 25, 2009

Aug. 25, 2009

PACER
75

ORDER: It is ordered that the February 10, 2009 Amended Scheduling Order is modified as follows: 1. The deadline for completion of fact discovery is extended to december 1, 2009. 2. Plaintiffs shall serve their expert report(s)on or before February 1, 2010. 3. Defendants shall serve their rebuttal expert report(s) on or before March 1, 2010. 4. All expert depositions shall be conducted between March 16, 2010, and April 16, 2010. All other provisions as set forth in this order. So Ordered (Signed by Judge Shira A. Scheindlin on 9/1/09) (js) (Entered: 09/01/2009)

Sept. 1, 2009

Sept. 1, 2009

PACER
76

ENDORSED LETTER: addressed to Judge Shira A. Scheindlin from Linda Donahue dated 9/4/09 re: Counsel for defendants request an adjournment of the currently scheduled September 15, 2009, 4:30 p.m. conference before Your Honor due to a scheduling conflict. Plaintiffs consent to this request. Counsel are available for a rescheduled date the following week, except September 25, 2009, and the week of October 5, 2009. ENDORSEMENT: Defendants' request for an adjournment is hereby granted the conference is rescheduled for October 1, 2009 at 4:30 p.m. So Ordered. ( Status Conference set for 10/1/2009 at 04:30 PM before Judge Shira A. Scheindlin.) (Signed by Judge Shira A. Scheindlin on 9/4/09) (js) (Entered: 09/08/2009)

Sept. 4, 2009

Sept. 4, 2009

PACER
77

TRANSCRIPT of proceedings held on 8/26/09 before Judge Shira A. Scheindlin. (ama) (Entered: 09/25/2009)

Sept. 24, 2009

Sept. 24, 2009

PACER
78

ENDORSED LETTER addressed to Judge Shira A. Scheindlin from David M. Hazan dated 10/1/2009 re: Requesting permission to file a four page response to plaintiffs' application. ENDORSEMENT: Request granted. So ordered. (Signed by Judge Shira A. Scheindlin on 10/1/2009) (jpo) (Entered: 10/01/2009)

Oct. 1, 2009

Oct. 1, 2009

PACER
79

ORDER....it is hereby ordered that FTI Consulting is appointed as the neutral expert. FTI has agreed to a rate of $300 per hour, the cost of which shall be borne by Defendants, subject to reallocation by the Court after receipt of the report. FTI may consult with any party or the expert retained by any party. Adam Cohen of FTI is the contact person on this assignment. He can be reached at his e-mail address. (Signed by Judge Shira A. Scheindlin on 10/13/09) (cd) (Entered: 10/13/2009)

Oct. 13, 2009

Oct. 13, 2009

RECAP
80

ORDER: On August 21, 2009, Defendants produced to Plaintiffs redacted minutes from CompStat meetings of the New York City Police Department. At Plaintiffs' request, the Court conducted an in camera review of the unredacted minutes. The Court finds that Defendants' redactions are appropriate in light of Plaintiffs' discovery request. Discovery in this case is ordered to proceed according to the scheduling order. (Signed by Judge Shira A. Scheindlin on 10/14/09) (tro) (Entered: 10/15/2009)

Oct. 14, 2009

Oct. 14, 2009

PACER
84

TRANSCRIPT of proceedings held on 10/9/09 before Judge Shira A. Scheindlin. (ldi) (Entered: 11/09/2009)

Oct. 28, 2009

Oct. 28, 2009

PACER
81

ORDER that at plaintiffs' request, the Court conducted an in camera review of the entire manual in unredacted form. The Court agrees with defendants that only chapters on and five contain information responsive to plaintiffs' discovery request. By ex parte communication, the Court will inform defendants of the portions that are responsive to plaintiffs' discovery request. Defendants shall either disclose those portions to plaintiffs or shall inform the Court on or before 11/6/09 whether they seek to prevent disclosure under the "investigatory privilege". Parties are directed to file simultaneous letter briefs addressing the applicability of the investigatory privilege, including whether this privilege applies to the CCRB as an independent civilian mayoral agency. The letter briefs shall no more than three pages in length and shall be submitted to chambers on 11/12/09 (Signed by Judge Shira A. Scheindlin on 11/4/09) (dle) Modified on 11/5/2009 (jmi). (jmi). Modified on 11/5/2009 (dle). (Entered: 11/05/2009)

Nov. 4, 2009

Nov. 4, 2009

PACER
82

MOTION for Reconsideration of Court's October 23, 2009 Decision Granting Protective Order as to Deposition of NYPD Borough Impact Overtime Captain. Document filed by Deon Dennis, David Ourlicht, David Floyd, Lalit Clarkson. Return Date set for 11/20/2009 at 02:30 PM.(Charney, Darius) (Entered: 11/06/2009)

Nov. 6, 2009

Nov. 6, 2009

PACER
83

DECLARATION of Darius Charney in Support re: 82 MOTION for Reconsideration of Court's October 23, 2009 Decision Granting Protective Order as to Deposition of NYPD Borough Impact Overtime Captain.. Document filed by Deon Dennis, David Ourlicht, David Floyd, Lalit Clarkson. (Charney, Darius) (Entered: 11/06/2009)

Nov. 6, 2009

Nov. 6, 2009

PACER
86

TRANSCRIPT of proceedings held on October 23, 2009 before Judge Shira A. Scheindlin. (mro) (Entered: 11/13/2009)

Nov. 10, 2009

Nov. 10, 2009

PACER
85

DECLARATION of Jennifer Rossan in Opposition re: 82 MOTION for Reconsideration of Court's October 23, 2009 Decision Granting Protective Order as to Deposition of NYPD Borough Impact Overtime Captain.. Document filed by The City of New York. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D, # 5 Exhibit E, # 6 Exhibit F, # 7 Exhibit G)(Rossan, Jennifer) (Entered: 11/13/2009)

2 Exhibit A

View on PACER

3 Exhibit B

View on PACER

4 Exhibit C

View on PACER

5 Exhibit D

View on PACER

6 Exhibit E

View on PACER

7 Exhibit F

View on PACER

8 Exhibit G

View on PACER

Nov. 13, 2009

Nov. 13, 2009

PACER
87

MEMORANDUM OF LAW in Opposition re: 82 MOTION for Reconsideration of Court's October 23, 2009 Decision Granting Protective Order as to Deposition of NYPD Borough Impact Overtime Captain.. Document filed by The City of New York. (Rossan, Jennifer) (Entered: 11/13/2009)

Nov. 13, 2009

Nov. 13, 2009

PACER
88

STIPULATION AND PROTECTIVE ORDER RELATED TO THE PHOTO ARRAYS SHOWN TO PLAINTIFFS...regarding procedures to be followed that shall govern the handling of confidential material.... (Signed by Judge Shira A. Scheindlin on 11/19/2009) (jpo) (Entered: 11/20/2009)

Nov. 19, 2009

Nov. 19, 2009

RECAP
89

REPLY to Response to Motion re: 82 MOTION for Reconsideration of Court's October 23, 2009 Decision Granting Protective Order as to Deposition of NYPD Borough Impact Overtime Captain.. Document filed by Deon Dennis, David Ourlicht, David Floyd, Lalit Clarkson. (Charney, Darius) (Entered: 11/20/2009)

Nov. 20, 2009

Nov. 20, 2009

PACER
90

REPLY AFFIDAVIT of Darius Charney in Support re: 82 MOTION for Reconsideration of Court's October 23, 2009 Decision Granting Protective Order as to Deposition of NYPD Borough Impact Overtime Captain.. Document filed by Deon Dennis, David Ourlicht, David Floyd, Lalit Clarkson. (Charney, Darius) (Entered: 11/20/2009)

Nov. 20, 2009

Nov. 20, 2009

PACER
91

STIPULATION AND PROTECTIVE ORDER FOR ATTORNEYS' AND EXPERTS' EYES ONLY: regarding procedures to be followed that shall govern the handling of confidential material. (Signed by Judge Shira A. Scheindlin on 11/24/09) (dle) (Entered: 11/25/2009)

Nov. 24, 2009

Nov. 24, 2009

PACER
92

ORDER: RAND is hereby ordered to disclose to the parties all information in its possession identifying the fifteen officers recognized in the Report as appearing to overstop blacks and Hispanics. Such disclosures shall be subject to a protective order agreed to by RAND and the parties, or imposed by the Court. If RAND is unable to identify these officers, for reasons unrelated to the prohibitions imposed by federal regulations, it shall immediately notify the Court and the parties. In this event, RAND shall explain to the NYPD how it can identify these officers. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Shira A. Scheindlin on 12/8/2009) (tve) (Entered: 12/08/2009)

Dec. 8, 2009

Dec. 8, 2009

PACER
93

ORDER granting 82 Motion for Reconsideration. Plaintiffs' motion to reconsider is granted. The Clerk of the Court is directed to close this motion (document number 82). Defendants' application for a protective order is granted in part as further set forth in this Order. The RAND Corporation is ordered to disclose to the parties all information in its possession identifying the fifteen (15) officers anonymously recognized in GREG RIDGEWAY, ANALYSIS OF RACIAL DISPARITIES IN THE NEW YORK POLICE DEPARTMENT'S STOP, QUESTION, AND FRISK PRACTICES (RAND Corporation 2007) as appearing to have stopped substantially more blacks or Hispanics than other officers when patrolling the same areas, at the same times, and with the same assignment. Plaintiffs' fourth request for an extension of discovery is granted. Fact discovery is extended to April 1, 2010. Expert discovery is extended to June 1,2010. No further extensions will be granted. A status and/or pre-motion conference is scheduled for April 5, 2010 at 4:30 p.m. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Shira A. Scheindlin on 12/8/2009) (tve) (Entered: 12/08/2009)

Dec. 8, 2009

Dec. 8, 2009

PACER

Set Deadlines/Hearings: Discovery due by 6/1/2010. Status Conference set for 4/5/2010 at 04:30 PM before Judge Shira A. Scheindlin. (tve)

Dec. 8, 2009

Dec. 8, 2009

PACER

***DELETED DOCUMENT. Deleted document number 94 Order. The document was incorrectly filed in this case. (tve)

Dec. 8, 2009

Dec. 8, 2009

PACER

Case Details

State / Territory: New York

Case Type(s):

Policing

Special Collection(s):

Stop-and-Frisk (NY)

COVID-19 (novel coronavirus)

Key Dates

Filing Date: Jan. 31, 2008

Case Ongoing: Yes

Plaintiffs

Plaintiff Description:

All persons who since January 31, 2005, have been, or in the future will be, subjected to NYPD's policies/practices of stopping and frisking in the absence of a reasonable, articulable suspicion of criminal activity, including on the basis of being black or Latino.

Plaintiff Type(s):

Private Plaintiff

Attorney Organizations:

Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR)

LatinoJustice PRLDEF

Public Interest Lawyer: Yes

Filed Pro Se: No

Class Action Sought: Yes

Class Action Outcome: Granted

Defendants

City of New York (New York), City

Defendant Type(s):

Jurisdiction-wide

Law-enforcement

Case Details

Causes of Action:

42 U.S.C. § 1983

State law

Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2201

Title VI, Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000d et seq.

Constitutional Clause(s):

Equal Protection

Unreasonable search and seizure

Availably Documents:

Trial Court Docket

Complaint (any)

Monetary Relief

Injunctive (or Injunctive-like) Relief

Non-settlement Outcome

Any published opinion

Outcome

Prevailing Party: Plaintiff

Nature of Relief:

Injunction / Injunctive-like Settlement

Attorneys fees

Damages

Source of Relief:

Settlement

Litigation

Form of Settlement:

Court Approved Settlement or Consent Decree

Amount Defendant Pays: 13,864,700.00

Order Duration: 2013 - None

Content of Injunction:

Develop anti-discrimination policy

Monitor/Master

Monitoring

Provide antidiscrimination training

Reporting

Training

Issues

General:

Disparate Impact

Disparate Treatment

Excessive force

Failure to discipline

Failure to supervise

Failure to train

False arrest

Over/Unlawful Detention

Pattern or Practice

Personal injury

Racial profiling

Record-keeping

Search policies

Discrimination-basis:

National origin discrimination

Race discrimination

Race:

Black

COVID-19:

Mitigation Requested

National Origin/Ethnicity:

Hispanic