In Re Laundress Marketing and Product Liability Litigation
- Jesse Furman
- 1:22-cv-10667
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Re Laundress Marketing and Product Liability Litigation: Judge Furman temporarily granted a request to seal sensitive health and personal information.
Deborah Geschwind and the plaintiffs, whose filings and exhibits were temporarily sealed; The Laundress, LLC and the other parties were affected by the filing and redaction requirements.
What happened
In Re Laundress Marketing and Product Liability Litigation concerns Deborah Geschwind’s request to temporarily file certain materials under seal in the product-liability litigation involving The Laundress, LLC.
Geschwind sought to seal portions of a letter response, her deposition transcript, and online purchase records containing health information about her and her mother, as well as her home address, email address, phone number, and customer number. The request cited privacy protections for medical and personal identifying information.
Judge Furman temporarily granted the sealing request but said he would decide whether the materials should remain sealed or be redacted when ruling on the underlying motion. He ordered the plaintiffs to publicly file any redacted documents by March 24, 2025.
The detailed version
- In Re Laundress Marketing and Product Liability Litigation · No. 1:22-cv-10667
- Jesse Furman
- Mar. 21, 2025
Background
Plaintiff Deborah Geschwind sought permission to file certain materials under seal in connection with her letter response to The Laundress, LLC’s letter motion concerning a conference about a motion to compel. The materials included portions of the response, Geschwind’s deposition transcript, and online purchase records produced during discovery.
Information at Issue
The requested seal covered non-public health information about Geschwind and her mother. It also covered Geschwind’s home address, except for the city and state, email address, phone number, and customer number for one online shopping account. The request relied on court rules and decisions recognizing privacy interests in medical information and personal identifying information.
Ruling
The court temporarily granted the motion to seal. It stated that it would assess whether the materials should remain sealed or instead be redacted when deciding the underlying motion. The court also reminded the parties that anyone seeking permission to file a redacted document must simultaneously file the redacted version publicly on the court’s electronic filing system. The plaintiffs were ordered to publicly file any redacted documents no later than March 24, 2025.
Effect
This order addresses temporary sealing and filing requirements. It does not decide whether the materials will ultimately remain sealed or be redacted, and it does not rule on the underlying motion.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.