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 a joint request to redact sensitive testimony and records concerning a nonparty child.
The petitioner, respondent, counsel for the nonparty child, the nonparty child whose private information was at issue, and members of the public seeking access to the court records.
What happened
In Swett Urquieta v. Bowe, the petitioner, respondent, and counsel for a nonparty child jointly asked the court to redact portions of admitted exhibits and trial testimony. The requested redactions concerned the child’s private information, including medical records.
The parties acknowledged that the materials were court records normally presumed open to the public. They argued that the child’s privacy interests, particularly regarding sensitive medical and mental-health information, outweighed public access. The letter also noted that the court had previously sealed testimony from three doctors.
Judge Paul Engelmayer granted the request. The order therefore allowed the requested redactions, but the opinion does not describe each redaction or identify the nonparty child by name.
The detailed version
- Swett Urquieta v. Bowe · No. 1:24-cv-01379
- Paul Engelmayer
- June 20, 2024
Background
Counsel for the petitioner, the respondent, and a nonparty child jointly requested permission to redact portions of admitted exhibits in this proceeding. The requested redactions covered portions of trial testimony concerning the child and information implicating the child’s privacy interests, including medical records. The request also referred to the court’s earlier order sealing testimony from Dr. Attie, Dr. Favaro, and Dr. Gomez.
Legal standard and reasoning
The parties recognized that the materials were judicial documents, meaning court records subject to a presumption of public access. They argued that this presumption must be balanced against privacy interests. The letter cited decisions recognizing that sensitive information about children, medical and mental-health records, and other private family matters may justify limiting public access. The parties maintained that redaction was appropriate because the information concerned a nonparty child.
Disposition
The court granted the request. The order allowed redaction of the identified confidential and sensitive information, but it does not specify the individual redactions in the text provided. The court entered the order on June 20, 2024, with the words “Granted” and “SO ORDERED.”
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.