Joao v. Epic Systems Corporation
- Jesse Furman
- 1:25-cv-00857
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Joao v. Epic Systems Corporation, Judge Furman temporarily granted Joao’s motion to seal pending a decision on the underlying motion.
Raymond A. Joao and Epic Systems Corporation, concerning public access to specified deposition-transcript excerpts and portions of Epic’s reply brief.
What happened
In Joao v. Epic Systems Corporation, Raymond A. Joao asked the court to keep certain portions of a deposition transcript and Epic Systems Corporation’s reply brief redacted or sealed. The materials contained information about Joao’s net worth and account location and amounts.
The request covered specified transcript lines and corresponding portions of Epic’s reply brief. The parties’ lawyers had discussed the request, and Epic’s counsel consented.
Judge Furman temporarily granted the motion to seal. The court will decide whether the materials should remain sealed or redacted when it decides the underlying motion, and the clerk was directed to terminate ECF No. 32.
The detailed version
- Joao v. Epic Systems Corporation · No. 1:25-cv-00857
- Jesse Furman
- Mar. 10, 2025
Background
Raymond A. Joao asked the court to restrict public access to specified portions of a rough deposition transcript and to corresponding material in Epic Systems Corporation’s reply brief supporting its motion to transfer. The requested restrictions concerned transcript lines designated under a protective order as “RESTRICTED — ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY” or “CONFIDENTIAL.” Joao’s counsel stated that the material included information about Joao’s net worth, the location of account information, and the amounts in those accounts.
The public filing included redactions, while related copies were filed under seal. Joao requested that the specified transcript excerpts and portions of Epic’s reply brief remain redacted or sealed. The opinion states that counsel for the parties conferred about the request and that Epic’s counsel consented.
Ruling
The court temporarily granted the motion to seal. It did not make a final decision about continued sealing or redaction; instead, it stated that it would assess whether the materials should remain sealed or redacted when deciding the underlying motion. The clerk of court was directed to terminate ECF No. 32.
Disposition
The ruling addressed only temporary sealing and redaction of specified materials. It did not decide the underlying motion to transfer.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.