Phillips v. Fashion Institute of Technology
- George Daniels
- 1:20-cv-00221
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
Phillips v. Fashion Institute of Technology: Judge Netburn granted sealing in part, keeping exhibits sealed but requiring a redacted affidavit to be filed publicly.
Marjorie Phillips, Fashion Institute of Technology, and members of the public seeking access to the court documents.
What happened
In Phillips v. Fashion Institute of Technology, Marjorie Phillips asked to keep under seal financial documents supporting her opposition to FIT’s request for costs. The documents included an affidavit about her assets and liabilities, paystubs, bank statements, and account balances. FIT agreed that the supporting exhibits should remain sealed but asked that the affidavit be made public.
The court explained that court documents are generally presumed to be available to the public when they help the court perform its work. Phillips’s affidavit and exhibits were such documents because they were used in considering whether she was able to pay costs. But the court found that the exhibits contained personal banking details and transaction information that could create a risk of financial fraud and were not all relevant to the decision. The affidavit needed only limited protection for the names of her banks.
Judge Sarah Netburn granted Phillips’s motion to seal in part. The supporting exhibits may remain sealed, but Phillips was ordered to publicly file the affidavit by September 3, 2024, after redacting the names of her banking institutions.
The detailed version
- Phillips v. Fashion Institute of Technology · No. 1:20-cv-00221
- George Daniels
- Aug. 30, 2024
Background
Marjorie Phillips moved to seal documents filed in connection with Fashion Institute of Technology’s motion for costs. The documents included Phillips’s affidavit describing her assets and liabilities and financial exhibits, including paystubs, bank statements, and account balances. FIT consented to sealing the supporting exhibits but asked the court to unseal the affidavit. Judge Netburn had previously allowed the documents to remain sealed temporarily and revisited the issue after addressing FIT’s motion for costs in a separate report and recommendation.
Legal standard
The court explained that judicial documents—documents relevant to the court’s work and useful in the judicial process—are subject to a strong presumption of public access. A court may seal such documents only when specific findings show that sealing is necessary to protect an important interest, and the sealing must be narrowly tailored. Privacy interests can outweigh public access when the party seeking protection makes a specific showing that disclosure would cause sufficiently serious harm.
Application
The court determined that Phillips’s affidavit and financial exhibits were judicial documents because Judge Netburn relied on them in the report and recommendation to find that Phillips was not indigent and to recommend awarding FIT the costs it sought.
The court found that the personal banking details in the exhibits could expose Phillips to financial fraud and that the exhibits also revealed individual transactions that were not relevant to the court’s decision. Phillips’s privacy interests therefore outweighed the need for public access to those exhibits, which could remain sealed.
The court found that the only information in the affidavit posing a comparable financial-fraud concern was the names of Phillips’s banking institutions. Rather than keep the entire affidavit sealed, the court ordered Phillips to redact those names and file the affidavit publicly.
Disposition
The court granted Phillips’s motion to seal in part. Her supporting exhibits may remain under seal. She was ordered to publicly file her affidavit, with the names of her banking institutions redacted, by September 3, 2024.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.