Swett Urquieta v. Bowe
- Paul Engelmayer
- 1:24-cv-01379
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Maria Elena Swett Urquieta v. John Francis Bowe, Judge Engelmayer granted a request to redact sensitive information about a nonparty child from trial exhibits.
The parties and the nonparty child whose sensitive personal and medical information appeared in the court record.
What happened
Maria Elena Swett Urquieta v. John Francis Bowe involved a joint request by the parties and counsel for another participant to redact portions of admitted exhibits.
The requested redactions concerned testimony and records involving a young child who was not a party to the case, including medical and mental-health information. The letter also noted that testimony from three doctors had previously been sealed.
Judge Paul A. Engelmayer granted the request, finding that the sensitive information could be redacted to protect the nonparty child’s privacy.
The detailed version
- Swett Urquieta v. Bowe · No. 1:24-cv-01379
- Paul Engelmayer
- June 20, 2024
Request
Counsel for the petitioner, respondent, and 8.8.8 jointly asked the court to redact portions of admitted exhibits. The request followed an earlier similar letter and concerned portions of trial testimony and other record materials.
Reasons for Redaction
The request stated that the materials were judicial documents, meaning court records to which the public generally has a right of access. It argued that this access presumption must be balanced against privacy interests. The materials at issue concerned S.B.S., described as a young child and a nonparty to the proceeding. The request stated that many, if not all, of the proposed redactions involved S.B.S.’s privacy interests, including medical records. It also noted that testimony from Dr. Attie, Dr. Favaro, and Dr. Gomez had previously been sealed.
Ruling
The court marked the request “Granted” and entered the order “SO ORDERED.” The opinion does not separately identify each redaction approved.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.