Thompson v. City of New York
- James Oetken
- 1:22-cv-01458
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In Thompson v. City of New York, Judge Parker ordered the City to revise proposed redactions for a report involved in a sealing motion.
The City of New York must submit revised proposed redactions and an explanation concerning the Department of Correction PREA Report. KWAINE THOMPSON was to receive a copy of the order.
What happened
Thompson v. City of New York concerns an outstanding motion to seal a Department of Correction PREA Report. The order followed a case-management conference held on January 23, 2025.
The court directed the City to file a letter by February 6, 2025, with revised proposed redactions. The letter must explain how those redactions comply with the standard cited by the court from Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga.
Judge Katharine H. Parker also requested that the Clerk mail a copy of the order to Kwaine Thompson. The order addressed the sealing matter and did not rule on the underlying claims.
The detailed version
- Thompson v. City of New York · No. 1:22-cv-01458
- James Oetken
- Jan. 23, 2025
Background
The court issued this post-conference order after a case-management conference on January 23, 2025. The matter involved an outstanding motion to seal a Department of Correction PREA Report. The opinion does not describe the underlying claims or the parties’ arguments on the motion to seal.
Order
The court directed the City to file a letter by February 6, 2025. The letter must include revised proposed redactions of the Department of Correction PREA Report and explain how those redactions are consistent with the standard cited in Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga, 435 F.3d 110, 120 (2d Cir. 2006).
The Clerk of Court was requested to mail a copy of the order to Kwaine Thompson. The order did not decide the motion to seal or the underlying claims.
Disposition
Judge Katharine H. Parker entered the post-conference order directing the City to submit the revised redactions and explanation. The opinion does not state that the motion to seal was granted or denied.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.