Morrissey v. A&E Television Networks, LLC
- Ronnie Abrams
- 1:24-cv-07856
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 10
In Morrissey v. A&E Television Networks, Judge Abrams provisionally approved certain redactions to protect W.W.H.’s privacy and closed the pending motion.
Sabrina E. Morrissey, in her capacity as Guardian of W.W.H., and the defendants whose filings contain the challenged redactions; the order primarily protects W.W.H.’s privacy interests.
What happened
In Morrissey v. A&E Television Networks, LLC, Plaintiff Sabrina E. Morrissey, acting as Guardian of W.W.H., asked the court to remove redactions covering information already made public while keeping private information about W.W.H. and a guardianship proceeding sealed.
The court provisionally approved the proposed redactions because the materials included sensitive medical information and information from an ongoing guardianship proceeding that had been sealed. The court also noted that the presumption of public access could require disclosure later if the information became the basis for deciding the case.
Judge Ronnie Abrams directed the plaintiff to file revised versions of the documents removing the redactions that the parties agreed could be lifted. The Clerk of Court was directed to close the motion listed at ECF No. 17.
The detailed version
- Morrissey v. A&E Television Networks, LLC · No. 1:24-cv-07856
- Ronnie Abrams
- Dec. 20, 2024
Background
Plaintiff Sabrina E. Morrissey, acting as Guardian of W.W.H., asked the court to decide which redactions in defendants’ November 15 filings should be removed and which should remain under seal. The filings included the original and amended complaints, answers and counterclaims by A&E Television Networks, LLC and Lifetime Entertainment Services, LLC, Entertainment One Reality Productions, LLC, and Creature Films, Inc. and Mark Ford.
The plaintiff proposed lifting redactions covering information that had already been publicly disclosed. She asked to keep other information sealed, including nonpublic information from the guardianship proceeding involving W.W.H., information about W.W.H.’s status and the Guardian’s powers, and medical diagnoses and treatments. The plaintiff also cited privacy concerns, existing sealing orders from the guardianship court, and a security concern involving death threats reported after public coverage of the guardianship proceeding. The defendants took no position on the merits of the redactions the plaintiff sought to maintain.
Court’s Analysis
The court recognized that the pleadings were judicial documents subject to a presumption of public access. It also stated that the presumption is not absolute and that narrowly tailored redactions may be used to protect higher interests, including privacy and sensitive medical information. The court relied on the sensitivity of the medical information and the fact that the guardianship proceeding was ongoing and sealed under New York law.
The court cautioned that the weight of the public-access presumption depends partly on the role of the material in the exercise of judicial power and its value to people monitoring the federal courts. It stated that the court could later order redactions lifted if the information became the basis for deciding the case.
Ruling
The court provisionally approved the proposed redactions. It directed the plaintiff to file revised versions of the redacted materials, removing the redactions that the parties agreed could be lifted. The Clerk of Court was directed to close the motion pending at ECF No. 17. The opinion does not state that the motion was formally granted or denied.
Read the full 10-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.