Vuksanovich v. Airbus Group HQ, Inc.
- Laura Swain
- 1:21-cv-03454
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Vuksanovich v. Airbus Group HQ, Judge Figueredo permanently sealed one exhibit and provisionally sealed another.
The defendants, Kristi Vuksanovich and the other plaintiffs, the court, and the public’s access to the two exhibits were affected. One exhibit was permanently restricted to the parties and the court; the other was temporarily restricted while proposed redactions were considered.
What happened
In Vuksanovich v. Airbus Group HQ, Inc., the defendants asked to seal exhibits attached to a court filing. One exhibit contained Kristi Vuksanovich’s confidential medical information, and another contained excerpts from the deposition of the plaintiffs’ expert.
The court granted the sealing motion in part and denied it in part. It permanently sealed the exhibit containing medical information. It temporarily sealed the expert-deposition excerpts until September 27, 2024, while the parties worked on proposed redactions for the few lines concerning medical information. Without proposed redactions, that temporary seal would expire and the exhibit would become publicly available.
Judge Valerie Figueredo ordered the Clerk of Court to terminate the motion and seal the exhibits as directed. The order did not decide the underlying claims in the case.
The detailed version
- Vuksanovich v. Airbus Group HQ, Inc. · No. 1:21-cv-03454
- Laura Swain
- Aug. 22, 2024
Background
Defendants moved to seal certain exhibits attached to ECF No. 179. The exhibits were ECF Nos. 179-1 and 179-2.
Ruling
The court granted the motion to seal in part and denied it in part.
For ECF No. 179-1, the court found that permanent sealing was appropriate because the document contained Kristi Vuksanovich’s confidential medical information. The Clerk was directed to permanently seal that exhibit so that only the parties and the court could view it.
For ECF No. 179-2, which contained excerpts from the deposition of the plaintiffs’ expert, the court granted a provisional seal through September 27, 2024. The court found that the transcript contained material that could qualify for sealing under the applicable factors, but emphasized that sealing must be narrowly tailored. Because only a few lines concerned confidential information about the plaintiffs’ medical condition or medical history, the court determined that partial redactions were a viable alternative to sealing the entire exhibit.
The parties were directed to meet and confer and submit proposed redactions by September 20, 2024. If they did not submit proposed redactions, the provisional seal would expire on September 27, 2024, and the document would become publicly available. Judge Valerie Figueredo also directed the Clerk to terminate the letter motion at ECF No. 177.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.