Jager v. DoorDash, Inc.
- Kenneth Karas
- 7:25-cv-01929
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Jager v. DoorDash, Judge Karas ordered the original complaint sealed and required a redacted version for public filing.
Phyllis Jager and members of the public who access the court docket; the order protects the personal information included in the original complaint.
What happened
In Jager v. DoorDash, Phyllis Jager’s lawyers said they had accidentally filed a complaint containing her address, phone number, and part of her bank-card information in screenshots. They filed a redacted replacement complaint and asked the court to remove or seal the original.
The court kept the original complaint under seal and directed Jager to submit the redacted complaint for public filing. The order addressed only the filing’s privacy concerns, not the underlying dispute.
Judge Karas entered this sealing and redaction order on March 12, 2025.
The detailed version
- Jager v. DoorDash, Inc. · No. 7:25-cv-01929
- Kenneth Karas
- Mar. 12, 2025
Background
Phyllis Jager’s lawyers reported that the original complaint, filed on March 7, 2025, inadvertently included sensitive personal information in screenshots. The information included a personal address, phone number, and part of a bank-card number. The electronic filing help desk temporarily sealed the original complaint and instructed the lawyers to file a redacted version and seek a court order.
The lawyers filed a redacted complaint on March 10, 2025, stating that the redactions made no substantive changes. They asked the court either to remove the original complaint from the docket or, if removal was not feasible, to permanently seal it.
Ruling
The court ordered that the original complaint be filed under seal and that Jager submit a redacted version of the complaint for public filing. The order did not address the merits of the claims against DoorDash, Inc.
Effect
The original complaint is not publicly available on the docket in its unredacted form under this order, while the redacted complaint is to be publicly filed. The opinion does not state whether the court authorized removal of the original complaint; it expressly provides for sealing it.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.