Swett Urquieta v. Bowe
- Paul Engelmayer
- 1:24-cv-01379
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Swett Urquieta v. Bowe, Judge Engelmayer granted the parties’ request to redact sensitive trial-transcript information concerning a nonparty child.
The order affects the parties’ trial transcript and protects sensitive information concerning S.B.S., a nonparty child.
What happened
In Maria Elena Swett Urquieta v. John Francis Bowe, the parties jointly asked the court to redact portions of a trial transcript. The requested redactions concerned S.B.S., a nonparty child.
The parties said the transcript included sensitive information, including medical records and other private matters involving the child. They also noted that the court had previously ordered testimony by three doctors sealed and that they were working on a similar request for trial exhibits.
Judge Paul A. Engelmayer granted the request. The order did not state that the court was deciding any underlying claim or dispute.
The detailed version
- Swett Urquieta v. Bowe · No. 1:24-cv-01379
- Paul Engelmayer
- June 13, 2024
Background
Counsel for Petitioner Maria Elena Swett Urquieta, Respondent John Francis Bowe, and S.B.S. jointly asked the court to redact portions of the trial transcript. The requested redactions concerned S.B.S., whom the submission identifies as a young child who is not a party to the proceeding.
Parties’ Request
The submission acknowledged that the transcript portions were judicial documents subject to a presumption of public access. It argued that privacy interests justified redaction because the material included sensitive information concerning the child, including medical records. The submission also stated that the court had previously ordered testimony by Dr. Attie, Dr. Favaro, and Dr. Gomez sealed. Counsel said they continued to work jointly on proposed redactions to trial exhibits and expected to submit a similar request.
Ruling
The court stated, “Granted. The Court wishes counsel well.” Judge Paul A. Engelmayer then entered the order. The opinion does not state that the court ruled on the underlying dispute between the parties; it granted the request concerning transcript redactions.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.