United States v. LABQ Clinical Diagnostics, LLC
- Lewis Liman
- 1:22-cv-00751
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In United States v. LABQ, Judge Liman addressed a sealed opinion and gave the parties until March 21 to propose required redactions.
The parties to the two listed actions, including LABQ Clinical Diagnostics, LLC and the other defendants, as well as the public’s access to the referenced judicial opinion.
What happened
United States v. LABQ Clinical Diagnostics, LLC involves the United States and other plaintiffs against LABQ Clinical Diagnostics, LLC and other defendants. The order concerns an Opinion and Order dated March 13, 2025, which denied the defendants’ motion to cancel the Government’s writs of attachment and garnishment.
The court filed that Opinion and Order under seal because it contained material filed under seal. The parties were given until March 21, 2025, to identify portions they believed should be redacted to comply with privacy rules, the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act and related regulations, or standards governing confidential information.
The order explained that any approved redactions must be narrowly tailored and consistent with the public’s general right to access court documents. Judge Lewis J. Liman entered the order on March 13, 2025; this order does not itself state that the earlier Opinion and Order was unsealed or that any proposed redactions were approved.
The detailed version
- United States v. LABQ Clinical Diagnostics, LLC · No. 1:22-cv-00751
- Lewis Liman
- Mar. 13, 2025
Background The opinion identifies two related federal actions brought by the United States and other plaintiffs against LABQ Clinical Diagnostics, LLC and other defendants. It states that, in a separate Opinion and Order dated March 13, 2025, the court denied the defendants’ motion to quash—that is, cancel—the Government’s writs of attachment and garnishment.
Sealing and Redactions The referenced Opinion and Order was filed under seal because it contained material that had been filed under seal. The court gave the parties until March 21, 2025, to advise it of portions they requested to be redacted under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 5.2, the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act and corresponding regulations, or Second Circuit standards concerning confidential information.
The court stated that redactions must be narrowly tailored to serve the purpose justifying them and must be consistent with the presumption favoring public access to judicial documents. It also stated that party consent, or the existence of a confidentiality agreement or protective order, is generally not by itself a sufficient basis for overcoming that presumption.
Disposition The court issued the order concerning the parties’ proposed redactions and the sealed filing. It did not state in this order that the referenced Opinion and Order had been unsealed or that any redactions had been approved. Judge Lewis J. Liman signed the order on March 13, 2025.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.