Morrissey v. A&E Television Networks, LLC
- Ronnie Abrams
- 1:24-cv-07856
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Morrissey v. A&E Television Networks, Judge Abrams ordered Plaintiff to justify requested redactions by November 15 while the joint letter remained temporarily redacted.
Plaintiff Sabrina E. Morrissey, acting as Guardian of W.W.H., must explain the proposed redactions by November 15, 2024; the parties’ joint status letter remains temporarily redacted pending the court’s decision.
What happened
In Morrissey v. A&E Television Networks, Plaintiff Sabrina E. Morrissey, acting as Guardian of W.W.H., asked the court to approve limited redactions in the parties’ joint status letter. Plaintiff said the redactions would protect information from a sealed guardianship proceeding, and Defendants did not oppose the request for purposes of the letter.
The court said it was unclear why the proposed redactions were justified. It ordered Plaintiff to explain the justification by November 15, 2024, so the court could review the request individually and make specific findings about whether sealing was necessary. Until then, the joint letter would remain temporarily redacted.
Judge Ronnie Abrams did not decide whether the redactions were ultimately warranted. The order instead required more information before resolving Plaintiff’s request to seal.
The detailed version
- Morrissey v. A&E Television Networks, LLC · No. 1:24-cv-07856
- Ronnie Abrams
- Nov. 14, 2024
Background
Plaintiff Sabrina E. Morrissey, acting as Guardian of W.W.H., asked the court to approve narrowly limited redactions to page four of the parties’ jointly filed status letter. Plaintiff’s counsel said the redactions would protect non-public information from a New York guardianship proceeding whose record had been sealed by the court overseeing that proceeding. The letter states that the information concerned W.W.H.’s health, familial relationships, and finances. Defendants did not oppose Plaintiff’s request for purposes of the letter and deferred to the court’s determination.
Court’s Action
The court stated that it was unclear why Plaintiff’s proposed redactions were justified. It ordered Plaintiff to explain the justification no later than November 15, 2024. The court cited the need for an individualized review and specific findings on whether sealing was necessary. Pending resolution of the request, the parties’ joint letter was to remain temporarily redacted.
What the Order Means
The court did not grant or deny the sealing request in this order. It required additional explanation before deciding whether the proposed redactions were necessary. The ruling concerns access to a court filing and does not decide the underlying claims in the case.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.