Camacho v. 673 J.R.V. Corp d/b/a Diamond Club
- Sarah Netburn
- 1:22-cv-07107
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In Camacho v. 673 J.R.V. Corp., Judge Netburn temporarily allowed deposition materials to be filed under seal pending summary-judgment proceedings.
The parties to the case and the public’s access to the deposition materials filed with the court.
What happened
In Camacho v. 673 J.R.V. Corp. d/b/a Diamond Club, the parties jointly asked to file portions of Sky Marlene Camacho’s deposition transcript under seal.
The court explained that earlier limits on public access to discovery materials do not control once the parties rely on those materials in connection with a motion for summary judgment. The parties therefore must file a letter motion to seal any material on which they want the court to rely.
The court granted the parties interim permission to file the transcript under seal, but said it would reconsider that decision when it decides the summary-judgment motion. Judge Sarah Netburn issued the order.
The detailed version
- Camacho v. 673 J.R.V. Corp d/b/a Diamond Club · No. 1:22-cv-07107
- Sarah Netburn
- Dec. 9, 2024
Background The parties jointly requested permission to file portions of Plaintiff Sky Marlene Camacho’s deposition transcript under seal. The request concerned discovery materials that the parties sought to use in connection with summary-judgment briefing.
Court’s Analysis The court stated that any relief previously granted concerning public access to discovery materials would not control once the parties sought to rely on those materials in dispositive motion practice. The court directed the parties to file a letter motion to seal any material on which they sought the court’s reliance for purposes of the summary-judgment motion. The order cited Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga, 435 F.3d 110 (2d Cir. 2006).
Ruling The court granted the parties interim relief allowing them to file the transcript under seal. It stated that it would revisit that ruling when it decided the motion for summary judgment. The order did not make a final determination about continued sealing.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.