Findley v. Barr
- George Daniels
- 1:20-cv-09548
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Findley v. Barr, Judge Figueredo granted sealing of two filings containing personal identifying information and ordered redacted refiling.
Andrew Keith Findley and public access to ECF Nos. 1 and 40-1.
What happened
Findley v. Barr involved Petitioner Andrew Keith Findley’s request to keep two court filings under seal because they contained personal identifying information.
Findley said one filing included his alien registration number and another included his birth date. He argued that the information was private, not relevant to the pending motion, and that court rules limit birth-date information in filings to the birth year.
Judge Valerie Figueredo granted the motion to seal. She directed Findley to refile the two documents with redactions for the birth date and alien registration number, and directed the Clerk of Court to terminate the motion.
The detailed version
- Findley v. Barr · No. 1:20-cv-09548
- George Daniels
- Oct. 24, 2024
Background
Petitioner Andrew Keith Findley requested permission to keep ECF Nos. 1 and 40-1 under seal. He stated that ECF No. 1 contained his alien registration number on page 1 and that ECF No. 40-1 contained his birth date on page 6. The request stated that this information implicated privacy interests and that the alien registration number was not relevant to any motion before the court.
The request also cited Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 5.2(a)(2), which provides that a filing containing an individual’s birth date may include only the year of birth. Findley proposed publicly filing redacted versions if the documents were kept under seal.
Ruling
Judge Valerie Figueredo endorsed the request and stated that the motion to seal was “hereby GRANTED.” The court directed Findley to refile ECF Nos. 1 and 40-1 with redactions for the birth date and alien registration number. The deadline appears in the provided text as “Thursday, 7, 2024”; the month is not clear in that text. The Clerk of Court was directed to terminate the motion at ECF No. 65.
Effect
The ruling concerns public access to two filings and the protection of Findley’s personal identifying information. It does not decide the underlying dispute described by the case caption.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.