New York v. Griepp

• Decision Date: 20 July 2018
• Docket Number: 17-CV-3706 (CBA)
• Court: U.S. District Court — Eastern District of New York
• Parties: People of the State of New York, by BARBARA D. UNDERWOOD, Acting Attorney General of the State of New York, Plaintiff, v. Kenneth Griepp, Ronald George, Patricia Musco, Randall Doe, Osayinwense N. Okuonghae, Anne Kaminsky, Brian George, Sharon Doe, Deborah M. Ryan, Angela Braxton, Jasmine LaLande, Prisca Joseph, and Scott Fitchett, Jr., Defendants.

People of the State of New York, by BARBARA D. UNDERWOOD,Acting Attorney General of the State of New York, Plaintiff, v. Kenneth Griepp, Ronald George, Patricia Musco,Randall Doe, Osayinwense N. Okuonghae,Anne Kaminsky, Brian George, Sharon Doe, Deborah M. Ryan, Angela Braxton,Jasmine LaLande, Prisca Joseph, and Scott Fitchett, Jr., Defendants.

17-CV-3706 (CBA)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

July 20, 2018

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

MEMORANDUM & ORDER

AMON, United States District Judge:

TABLE OF CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................. 3

FINDINGS OF FACT ....................................................................................................... 5

I. Background .......................................................................................................... 6

II. The OAG's Evidence ......................................................................................... 10

1. Video and Photo Evidence .............................................................................. 10

2. Clinic Escort Recaps and Protestor Experience Questionnaires ..................... 11

3. Pearl Brady ...................................................................................................... 13

4. Mary Lou Greenberg ....................................................................................... 14

5. Margot Garnick ................................................................................................ 15

6. Theresa White .................................................................................................. 16 7. Troyd Asmus ................................................................................................... 17

III. Specific Findings of Fact ................................................................................... 18

1. Kenneth Griepp ................................................................................................ 18

2. Ronald George ................................................................................................. 21

3. Patricia Musco ................................................................................................. 26

4. Ranville Thomas .............................................................................................. 29

5. Prisca Joseph .................................................................................................... 35

6. Osayinwense Okuonghae ................................................................................ 40

7. Anne Kaminsky ............................................................................................... 42

8. Brian George .................................................................................................... 43

9. Sharon Richards ............................................................................................... 43

10. Deborah Ryan .................................................................................................. 46

11. Angela Braxton ................................................................................................ 46

12. Jasmine LaLande ............................................................................................. 49

13. Scott Fitchett, Jr. ............................................................................................... 51

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW ............................................................................................ 54

I. Standard of Review ........................................................................................... 54

II. Standing .............................................................................................................. 56

1. Quasi-Sovereign Interest ................................................................................. 57

2. Injury to a Substantial Segment of New York's Population ........................... 593. Availability of Complete Relief Through a Private Suit ................................. 60

III. First Amendment Challenge ............................................................................ 63

IV. Specific Conclusions of Law ............................................................................. 66

1. Force ................................................................................................................ 67

2. Threats of Force ............................................................................................... 72

3. Physical Obstruction ........................................................................................ 86

4. Follow-and-Harass ........................................................................................... 95

5. Interference with the Operation of a Reproductive Health Care Facility ...... 102

CONCLUSION ............................................................................................................. 103

INTRODUCTION

Every Saturday morning for the past six years, anti-abortion protestors and volunteer clinic escorts have been clashing outside Choices Women's Medical Center ("Choices" or the "Clinic") in Jamaica, Queens. Starting before Choices opens at 7:00 a.m., the anti-abortion protestors set up along the sidewalk leading to the Clinic entrance and proceed to engage in a variety of activities. Some hold large signs that purport to show images of aborted fetuses; others principally preach; still others attempt to hand approaching patients and their companions anti-abortion literature and to engage them in conversation about the morality of their actions. The escorts also arrive early in the morning. They attempt to accompany the patients to the Clinic entrance and to shield them from what the escorts believe is illegal conduct by the protestors.

The New York State Office of the Attorney General ("OAG") filed this action against thirteen named protestor-defendants on June 20, 2017, seeking declaratory, injunctive, and monetary relief under federal, New York State, and New York City law. (D.E. # 1 ("Compl.").) The OAG brings its first cause of action under the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act ("FACE"), 18 U.S.C. §§ 248(a)(1), 248(c)(3)(A), its second cause of action under the New York Clinic Access Act ("NYSCAA"), N.Y. Penal Law § 240.70(1)(a)-(b); N.Y. Civ. Rights Law § 79-m, and its third cause of action under the New York City Clinic Access Act ("NYCCAA"), N.Y.C. Admin. Code §§ 8-803(a)(1)-(4), (6), 8-804. (Compl. ¶¶ 98-110.) The OAG filed a motion for a preliminary injunction the same day it filed its complaint, and the defendants filed motions to dismiss shortly thereafter.

On October 23, 2017, the parties agreed that it would be most efficient to bypass the usual preliminary injunction procedure, expedite discovery, and proceed directly to trial. (D.E. dated Oct. 23, 2017.) On January 18, 2018, however, after discovery was largely completed, it was decided that the trial should be styled as a preliminary injunction hearing since the case could not be fully resolved. (D.E. dated Jan. 18, 2018.) The defendants stated that, if their motions to dismiss were denied, they intended to answer and file counterclaims based in part on former-Attorney General Eric Schneiderman's statement, at a press conference held outside Choices to announce this action, that this is "not a nation where you can choose your point of view." (Id.)

The preliminary injunction hearing was held between February 12 and March 6, 2018. The parties presented documentary evidence, including videos, pictures, Protestor Experience Questionnaires, Clinic Escort Recaps, and Investigator Surveillance Reports. The OAG called seven witnesses: Pearl Brady, Mary Lou Greenberg, Margot Garnick, Theresa White, Troyd Asmus, Esther Priegue, and Angelica Din. The defendants called ten witnesses: Kenneth Griepp,Ronald George, Prisca Joseph, Patricia Musco, Ranville Thomas, Angela Braxton, Peter Nicotra, Scott Fitchett, Jr., Merle Hoffman, and Luis Carter. On May 22, 2018, argument was held on the OAG's motion for a preliminary injunction.

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 52(a), I set forth below my findings of fact and conclusions of law.

FINDINGS OF FACT

At the preliminary injunction hearing, the OAG, in attempting to carry its burden of proof, relied on three primary categories of evidence to establish that the defendants violated federal, state, and city law: (1) videos and photographs, (2) Clinic Escort Recaps and Protestor Experience Questionnaires, and (3) the testimony of witnesses Brady, Greenberg, Garnick, White, and Asmus. I discuss generally the credibility of each of these categories of evidence before making its specific findings of fact as to each defendant. I address the credibility of each of the OAG's principal witnesses, because the reliability of their testimony is crucial to the OAG's attempt to carry its burden as to each defendant. The testifying defendants carry no similar burden. I address their credibility only when their testimony is necessary to a specific finding of fact.

When making specific findings of fact, I place significant weight on the video and photographic evidence, no weight on the Clinic Escort Recaps or Protestor Experience Questionnaires, and limited weight on the OAG witness testimony. The most problematic of the credibility issues discussed below is the tendency for the Clinic Escort Recaps, Protestor Experience Questionnaires, and OAG witness testimony to exaggerate the impropriety of the defendants' conduct and to omit mitigating circumstances. In this regard, it is notable that, despite the availability of hundreds of hours of video evidence, the OAG has not cited a single video thatcorroborates the witness testimony claiming near-weekly violations. Instead, the video evidence contradicts the escorts' accounts of protestor conduct on specific occasions.

I do not suggest that the escorts...