Anonymous v. Anonymous
- Tarnofsky
- 1:24-cv-03495
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Anonymous v. Anonymous, Judge Tarnofsky denied reconsideration of document-redaction orders but extended the compliance deadline.
The petitioner, whose requested redactions were not permitted and whose compliance deadline was extended; the public, because the court declined to allow the submitted documents to be effectively sealed.
What happened
In Anonymous v. Anonymous, the petitioner asked the court to clarify its prior orders and argued that some documents should remain heavily redacted because they included a confidential communication with the Federal Bureau of Investigation and medical records she sought to seal.
The court said that documents it relied on generally could not be hidden from the public under controlling Second Circuit law. It denied the petitioner’s request for reconsideration of the May 24 and June 3 orders, but extended the deadline to comply with the June 3 order until June 14, 2024.
Judge Tarnofsky also explained that judges cannot provide legal advice and referred the petitioner to several legal- assistance organizations for information about whether the court could grant the requested relief.
The detailed version
- Anonymous v. Anonymous · No. 1:24-cv-03495
- Tarnofsky
- June 10, 2024
Background
The petitioner filed a letter seeking clarification of the court’s June 3, 2024 order. That order required her to refile documents after the court determined that she had redacted more information than allowed by the court’s May 24, 2024 order. The court interpreted the letter as a request to reconsider both prior orders.
The petitioner argued that one document contained a confidential communication with the Federal Bureau of Investigation and that other documents were medical records she was trying to have sealed. She also asked about the basis for the court’s earlier statement that serious questions existed about whether the court had authority to grant the relief requested in the petition.
Court’s reasoning
The court stated that it was bound by Second Circuit law and did not understand that law to permit documents on which the court relied to be hidden from the public. It therefore said it could not permit the petitioner to redact all or large portions of the submitted documents because doing so would effectively seal them.
The court also stated that judges may not provide legal advice. Instead of explaining the legal basis for its earlier statement, it encouraged the petitioner to consult the Mental Hygiene Legal Service, the independent New York Legal Assistance Group Legal Clinic for Pro Se Litigants in the Southern District of New York, or the City Bar Justice Center’s Veterans Assistance Project.
Ruling
The court denied the petitioner’s request for reconsideration of its May 24 and June 3, 2024 orders. It extended, effective retroactively, the deadline to comply with the June 3 order until June 14, 2024. The opinion does not state the ultimate resolution of the underlying petition.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.