Brady v. Ottaway Newspapers, Inc., 63 N.Y.2d 1031 (1984)
An appellate court can substitute its own discretion for that of a lower court in discovery matters, even absent an abuse of discretion by the lower court, and its decision is reviewable by the Court of Appeals only for abuse of discretion as a matter of law.
Summary
In a libel action, both plaintiffs and defendants sought disclosure of confidential investigative reports regarding police scandals from a non-party respondent. The respondent opposed disclosure based on the “public interest” privilege, arguing it would lead to reprisals against informants and impair future investigations. Special Term granted the motions but ordered redaction of informants’ names. The Appellate Division reversed, finding an abuse of discretion. The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that the Appellate Division properly substituted its own discretion for that of Special Term and that no abuse of discretion by the Appellate Division occurred.
Facts
Plaintiffs sued Ottaway Newspapers for libel. During discovery, both parties sought access to confidential investigative reports held by a non-party concerning police scandals from 1972. The non-party opposed the disclosure, claiming the reports were privileged due to public interest concerns, as revealing the reports would endanger informants and hinder future investigations.
Procedural History
Special Term granted the motion for discovery but ordered the names of informants to be redacted. The Appellate Division reversed Special Term’s order, holding that Special Term had abused its discretion in ordering disclosure. The Court of Appeals granted leave to appeal and certified the question of whether the Appellate Division had the power to deny the discovery motions in the exercise of its own discretion.
Issue(s)
Whether the Appellate Division had the power to deny discovery motions in the exercise of its own discretion, even in the absence of an abuse of discretion by the Special Term.
Holding
Yes, because the Appellate Division is vested with the same power and discretion as Special Term and may substitute its own discretion, reviewable by the Court of Appeals only for abuse of discretion as a matter of law.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court of Appeals affirmed the Appellate Division’s order, emphasizing the Appellate Division’s broad discretionary power in discovery matters. The Court noted that while determinations regarding special circumstances to support discovery against a non-party typically rest within the sound discretion of the initial court, the Appellate Division shares that discretion. Therefore, even absent an abuse of discretion by the Special Term, the Appellate Division can substitute its own judgment. The Court found the Appellate Division appropriately balanced the litigant’s right to evidence with the public interest in protecting investigations. The Appellate Division determined that redaction of names would not sufficiently safeguard the non-party respondent’s interests, as “speculation, fueled by disclosure of the reports, could subject sources to reprisals and imperil any future investigation of a similar nature.” The Court of Appeals then held that it would review the Appellate Division’s decision only for abuse of discretion, which the appellants did not claim occurred. The Court specifically limited its holding to the question of the Appellate Division’s power and declined to address any other issue.