Doolittle v. Bloomberg L.P.
- Rochon
- 1:22-cv-09136
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
Doolittle v. Bloomberg L.P.: Judge Rochon ordered several filings sealed to protect medical and financial information and found one sealing request moot.
Abigail Doolittle, Bloomberg L.P., Mark Crumpton, and members of the public who may otherwise have accessed the filings were affected by the sealing directions. The sealed materials contain medical information and individual financial information.
What happened
In Doolittle v. Bloomberg L.P., the court considered requests by Bloomberg L.P. and Abigail Doolittle to seal or redact filings connected to anticipated motions about expert testimony and summary judgment. The materials included expert reports, deposition excerpts, and information about individual salaries.
The court ordered filings containing sensitive medical information to remain under seal. It also ordered a filing containing commercially sensitive financial information to remain under seal. The court found Mark Crumpton’s request moot because his counsel later stated that no redactions were necessary.
Judge Jennifer L. Rochon directed the Clerk of Court to maintain the specified filings under seal and requested that the clerk close the gavels at Dockets 135, 141, 142, and 144.
The detailed version
- Doolittle v. Bloomberg L.P. · No. 1:22-cv-09136
- Rochon
- Jan. 15, 2025
What the Court Considered
The court considered three sealing matters: Bloomberg’s requests to file under seal its pre-motion letter about excluding Abigail Doolittle’s expert, Dr. Lieberman, and its response to Doolittle’s pre-motion letter about excluding Bloomberg’s expert, Dr. Seltzer; and Doolittle’s request to seal or redact responses to defendants’ pre-motion letters and related exhibits.
Medical Information
The court stated that Dr. Lieberman’s expert report and anticipated testimony contained sensitive medical information about Doolittle and that medical information carries a strong privacy interest. It therefore directed the Clerk of Court to maintain Docket 141 under seal. The court likewise directed the clerk to maintain Docket 143 under seal because Bloomberg’s response concerning Dr. Seltzer also involved Doolittle’s sensitive medical information.
The court also approved sealing Doolittle’s unredacted response to Bloomberg’s pre-motion letter concerning exclusion of Dr. Lieberman’s testimony, along with Dr. Lieberman’s expert report and excerpts from Dr. Lieberman’s deposition discussing that report. The clerk was directed to maintain Docket 149 and Exhibits A and B to that docket under seal.
Financial Information
Doolittle also sought to file under seal an unredacted version of Exhibit A to her response to Bloomberg’s anticipated summary-judgment motion. She sought to redact references to individual financial information, including salaries. The court stated that courts in the district routinely permit sealing or redaction of commercially sensitive and financial information and directed the clerk to maintain Docket 146 under seal.
Crumpton’s Request and Administrative Direction
Doolittle sought, at Mark Crumpton’s request, to seal Exhibit B to her response concerning Bloomberg’s anticipated summary-judgment motion and to redact references to that exhibit in her responses concerning Bloomberg’s and Crumpton’s anticipated summary-judgment motions. Crumpton’s counsel later stated that no redactions were necessary. The court therefore considered that request moot.
The court requested that the Clerk of Court close the gavels at Dockets 135, 141, 142, and 144. The opinion did not decide whether any party should win the anticipated expert-testimony or summary-judgment motions.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.