Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled June 18, 2024

Andretta v. Long Island Plastic Surgical Group, PC

Judge
Vernon Broderick
Docket
1:24-cv-04554
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
2
Civil Procedure
In one sentence

In Andretta v. Long Island Plastic Surgical Group, Judge Broderick ordered an unredacted complaint sealed and required a motion supporting redactions, or dismissal could follow.

Who this affects

Victoria Andretta and Long Island Plastic Surgical Group, PC; the order also concerns the proposed group of similarly situated people identified in the complaint.

What happened

In Andretta v. Long Island Plastic Surgical Group, PC, Victoria Andretta filed a redacted complaint against Long Island Plastic Surgical Group, PC, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated.

The court explained that complaints are generally public judicial documents. Because no judge had approved the redactions, the court required Andretta to file an unredacted complaint under seal and submit a motion to file a redacted complaint.

Judge Vernon S. Broderick ordered those filings by June 21, 2024, and directed the Clerk to withhold the summons until further order. The order warned that failure to comply would result in dismissal for failure to prosecute under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b).

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
Andretta v. Long Island Plastic Surgical Group, PC · No. 1:24-cv-04554
Judge
Vernon Broderick
Date
June 18, 2024

Background

Victoria Andretta commenced the lawsuit by filing a redacted complaint against Long Island Plastic Surgical Group, PC, doing business as New York Plastic Surgical Group. The complaint stated that Andretta was proceeding on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated. The opinion says the complaint was filed on June 14, 2024, and that the redactions had not been approved by the judge or any other judge in the Southern District of New York.

Court’s reasoning

The court explained that judicial documents generally carry a common-law presumption of public access. Before allowing a document to be sealed or redacted, the court must make specific findings that a more important value requires narrowly tailored restrictions. The court concluded that a complaint qualifies as a judicial document because it is relevant to the court’s work and useful in the judicial process.

Order and effect

Judge Vernon S. Broderick ordered Andretta to file an unredacted complaint under seal by June 21, 2024, and to file a motion seeking permission to file a redacted complaint under the procedures in the judge’s individual rules and practices for civil cases. The order states that failure to comply will result in dismissal of the case for failure to prosecute under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). The Clerk of Court was directed to withhold the summons until further order of the court. The opinion does not decide the underlying claims or the merits of the lawsuit.

The authoritative version

Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.