Ungar v. JetBlue Airways Corporation
- Ronnie Abrams
- 1:24-cv-01494
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Ungar v. JetBlue Airways, Judge Abrams granted JetBlue’s request to seal two exhibits and require redacted versions protecting plaintiffs’ sensitive personal information.
The plaintiffs, whose sensitive personal information appeared in the exhibits, and members of the public seeking access to those exhibits.
What happened
In Ungar v. JetBlue Airways Corporation, the defendant asked the court to seal Exhibits C and D filed with its motion to dismiss and to file redacted versions instead.
The court said the exhibits contained plaintiffs’ full home addresses, birthdays, credit card information, personal email addresses, and phone numbers. It found that the plaintiffs’ privacy interests outweighed the public interest in seeing that information.
Judge Ronnie Abrams granted the application. She directed the Clerk of Court to mark both exhibits as sealed and to close the related motion.
The detailed version
- Ungar v. JetBlue Airways Corporation · No. 1:24-cv-01494
- Ronnie Abrams
- May 28, 2024
Background
JetBlue Airways Corporation asked the court to seal Exhibits C and D, which were filed with the declaration of Brian Friedman supporting JetBlue’s motion to dismiss. JetBlue also asked to file redacted versions of those exhibits. The case names Brucha Ungar, Miriam Lunger, and Abraham Lunger as plaintiffs and JetBlue Airways Corporation and Jane Doe as defendants.
Reasons for the Ruling
The court explained that the exhibits included the plaintiffs’ complete home addresses and birthdays. The Southern District of New York’s electronic-filing privacy notice requires at least partial redaction of that information, and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 5.2(a) does not allow parties to file documents containing individuals’ full birth dates.
The exhibits also included the last four digits of the plaintiffs’ credit card numbers. Although those digits were not complete card numbers, the court found that the public interest in seeing them was low and the plaintiffs’ privacy interests were high. The court further found that personal email addresses and phone numbers should be redacted because the privacy interest in them was high and they did not help the public monitor or understand the judicial process.
Ruling
Judge Ronnie Abrams granted the defendant’s application to seal Exhibits C and D and to refile redacted versions. She directed the Clerk of Court to change the viewing level of Exhibit C, ECF No. 16-3, and Exhibit D, ECF No. 16-4, to “Sealed,” and to close the motion pending at ECF No. 18. The opinion addresses the sealing request and does not rule on the underlying motion to dismiss.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.