GLOVERSVILLE — A federal judge ruled Monday that the lawyer representing fired Gloversville City Clerk Gary Margiotta may not release any more evidence in the case to the public and the news media.

Since he filed suit alleging Margiotta was wrongfully dismissed in December 2006, Amsterdam attorney Elmer Robert Keach III has routinely given reporters copies of depositions taken from city officials.

U.S. District Court Judge George H. Lowe ruled Keach may not release any information in the case that is not subject to the Freedom of Information Law.

Lowe, who addressed a number of pending case issues while denying motions from both sides for sanctions, expressed his “distaste” for some of Keach’s comments to the media, which he said “significantly exacerbate, arguably in a misleading fashion, the potential for embarrassment and annoyance.”

Lowe cited a number of Keach’s comments including: “I’m going to make sure someone pays through the nose for this nonsense,” and “I can think of no reason, other than desperation, mean spiritedness and cowardice, that would justify [former Councilman Lance] Gundersen’s recent actions.”

While Lowe generally barred any new releases of evidence, he did provide lawyers an opportunity to petition him if they believe circumstances warrant disclosing information.

Lawyers for the city’s firm, Girvin & Ferlazzo, could not be reached late Monday afternoon for comment.

Keach said the ruling, which he termed a “quintessential pyrrhic victory” for the city, will not hinder his ability to litigate the wrongful termination case. “The truth will come out here; it’s just going to take a little bit longer than I would have hoped,” he said.

“I plan to renew my efforts here to take this case to a verdict,” Keach said. He said the city’s failure to reach a settlement will have consequences for the taxpayers.

Lowe, citing case law requiring he have good cause to bar disclosures of discovery material, found that embarrassment and annoyance has occurred for defendants and non-parties “and the resulting harm is significant, and far more than mere discomfort.” While those findings constitute good cause, he said, as Margiotta seeks damages for alleged harm, humiliation and defamation, Keach’s “avowed publicity campaign ... inevitably will impact, in some fashion, upon [Margiotta’s] reputation and the alleged public humiliation and defamation.”

In a footnote, Lowe said “in certain respects the court admires [Keach’s] zeal and tenacity, but wonders whether, in terms of his publicity campaign, this zeal and tenacity is misplaced.” Lowe is said it “is difficult to see how this publicity campaign benefits Mr. Margiotta.”

Lowe happens to cite case law from Keach’s last wrongful termination suit against the city. Keach used similar tactics in 2002 on behalf of the late Deputy Finance Commissioner Lisa Flaherty, who eventually settled for $110,000.

Citing the Flaherty case, Lowe said, this case “has a public nature, involving public officials in the performance of their duties, ‘the mere fact that some level of discomfort, or even embarrassment, may result,’ is not enough to support a finding of ‘good cause’ [for a protective order barring disclosures].”

In finding good cause, Lowe cites deposition testimony concerning alleged romantic relationships by non-parties to the lawsuit.