Dinler v. City of New York, 607 F.3d. 923 (2d. Cir. 2010) Case Study

Dinler v. City of New York, 607 F.3d. 923 (2d. Cir. 2010) - Case Study Example Thus, it was ordered that reports by covert operatives are of confidential nature and, therefore, cannot be revealed to the defendants on the grounds of safeguarding public interest. The court further added that the plaintiffs did not have sufficient reasons to warrant the production of the police reports, which are confidential in nature. Thus, the writ was granted and the orders of the lower court were vacated. The case was previously heard by the court for the Southern District of New York where the plaintiffs had petitioned and during the trials they requested for the production of undercover police reports. The court directed the city to produce the documents for verification by plaintiffs during the trial. The plaintiffs alleged that the mass arrest of the demonstrators constituted the violation of their â€Å"state and federal constitutional rights† (United States District Court Southern District of New York, 2012, p.1). During the trial, they requested the production of police reports by covert operatives and the city filed writ for mandamus on the grounds that such documents cannot be divulged before the public. However, the district court ordered that the documents be produced and as an alternative suggested that it be done â€Å"attorney’s eyes only basis† (Adams, n.d., p.1). In this scenario, the city had to resort to seeking a writ for mandamus as producing the documents for the scrutiny of the attorney would also have compromised the confidentiality of the reports. The Court of Appeal granted the writ on the grounds that the petition of the city qualifies for a mandamus as it raised â€Å"novel and significant† questions of law (p.1). The court also agreed to the fact that police reports are entitled for â€Å"law enforcement privilege† and thus the these are not to be divulged to either the plaintiff or their attorneys (p.1). The main