Mercer v. VIACOMCBS/PARAMOUNT
- Lorna Schofield
- 1:22-cv-06322
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Mercer v. VIACOMCBS/PARAMOUNT, Judge Schofield granted the sealing motion and denied the mediation motion.
The ruling protects the plaintiff’s stated medical privacy interest, permits the defendant’s requested sealing, and leaves the parties without a court order requiring mediation.
What happened
In Mercer v. VIACOMCBS/PARAMOUNT, the defendant asked to seal documents filed in support of its motion to dismiss the plaintiff’s second amended complaint. The documents contained the plaintiff’s private medical information.
The court said the documents were judicial records, so the public generally has a right to see them. It found that protecting the plaintiff’s medical privacy justified the narrowly tailored redactions requested by the defendant.
The court granted the sealing motion at Docket No. 76 and denied the plaintiff’s motion to require mediation at Docket No. 67. Judge Schofield directed the Clerk of Court to close both motions.
The detailed version
- Mercer v. VIACOMCBS/PARAMOUNT · No. 1:22-cv-06322
- Lorna Schofield
- Aug. 21, 2024
Background
The defendant moved to seal documents filed with its motion to dismiss the plaintiff’s second amended complaint. The documents were attached to the declaration supporting that motion. The defendant said the proposed redactions concerned the plaintiff’s private medical information.
The plaintiff separately moved for an order requiring the parties to participate in mediation. The defendant had not indicated an interest in mediation.
Sealing Analysis
The court explained that sealing requests require a three-step analysis. First, the court determines whether the material is a judicial document subject to a presumed right of public access. Second, it determines the strength of that presumption. Third, it weighs the presumption against competing interests.
The court found that all documents covered by the sealing request were judicial documents because they were submitted for consideration in connection with a motion to dismiss. The court recognized that protecting private medical information can outweigh the public-access presumption. It found that the requested redactions were narrowly tailored to protect the plaintiff’s privacy interest.
Rulings
The court granted the sealing motion at Docket No. 76. It denied the plaintiff’s motion to require mediation at Docket No. 67. The Clerk of Court was directed to close both motions.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.