Long Island Audit Plans to Air Deposition Videos
The long-running lawsuit involving SeanPaul “Long Island Audit” Reyes and the city of New York over access to recording in all parts of police precincts took another strange turn on Wednesday as the defense objected to Reyes’ apparent plans to air depositions in the case on his YouTube channel.
A joint filing by both sides of the lawsuit has asked for a conference with Judge Jessica G. L. Clarke to discuss an order preventing Reyes from airing the depositions of two New York Police Department officers on his YouTube channel.
Mark D. Zuckerman, representing the City of New York, says the defense is not objecting to Reyes’ ability to record the depositions, they are, however, protesting his plans to air the depositions on his YouTube channel.
In the filing, they cited that the officers and attorneys involved in the defense have already received harassing and threatening messages from Reyes’ fans based on previous coverage from his YouTube channel.
Zuckerman stated, “As seen, the position of plaintiff for rejecting this compromise as stated to me during the “meet and confer” is that the whole purpose of creating these videos is that plaintiff wishes to post them online following the completion of this case1. Ms. Munoz did state that she would talk to Mr. Case (who is on vacation) in the evening of April 14, 2025 about the issues I raised during the “meet and confer” concerning the past harassment and whether plaintiff would reconsider his position. I have not yet heard back.”
Reyes’ attorney, Karen Munoz Trevino, countered by minimizing the amount of harassment the officers and attorneys as they were a small part to pay for the first amendment issues that the banning of the footage would bring.
She stated, “This case is not a typical case – this case specifically involves the NYPD’s interpretation of the First Amendment, a matter of great public interest. Det. Cucuzza is a public employee whose information and activity, generally, is subject to Freedom of Information Laws. As such, his activity as an officer is subject to public scrutiny regardless of any pending litigation. It should be noted that an important limitation on the First Amendment exists via criminal statutes which allow for the investigation of and prosecution against those who threaten police officers. Det. Cucuzza’s safety is well accounted for by the NYPD’s authority given such criminal statutes.”
The defense may have reason to be concerned as Reyes is best known for running the second largest first amendment auditing related YouTube channel, with his “Long Island Audit” bringing him extensive fame and fortune.
Unlike his rivals, most notably Jose “Chille” DeCastro, Reyes has an active endorsement deal with the Attorney Shield product along with a very active following on Cameo. A Recent “call for help” saw Reyes receive a tremendous outpouring of financial donations even when he wasn’t asking for money.
Reyes recently made headlines as he defied a court order and used depositions from a recently dismissed case in Illinois on his YouTube channel to allegedly harass and intimidate the defense in the lawsuit before he filed an appeal.
In that case, he may face sanctions for posting the depositions in defiance of the agreement made when he was allowed to videotape said depositions. Reyes had agreed to never post the videos to his YouTube channel at the time of the agreement. He has since blamed his actions on a “misunderstanding” between himself and his former attorney.
The defense for the City of New York is seeking a protective order to prevent Reyes from airing the videos of the deposition on his YouTube channel.
Update: On Thursday, Judge Jessica G. L. Clarke issued the following ruling:
The Court has received the City’s April 17, 2025 letter (ECF No. 127). The parties are directed to confer regarding a proposed protective order that will govern agreed upon discovery, including depositions, for the pendency of this action and will continue to govern what the parties agree constitutes confidential information thereafter. If the parties are unable to reach agreement, they shall submit a joint letter by May 9, 2025, setting forth each parties’ respective position pursuant to Individual Rule 4(k). In the meantime, no party shall post or share with a third-party any videotaped depositions without the written consent of the opposing party.
The parties filed a joint amended case management plan on Friday indicating that court ordered Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) would not be effective at this time. The parties cited a pending ruling by the Second Circuit Court of Appeals as the reason they could not move forward with the case at this time.
We’ll provide updates to this suit as they’re posted.
