Handberry v. Thompson
- George Daniels
- 1:96-cv-06161
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Handberry v. Thompson, Judge Lehrburger authorized plaintiffs to file their reply under seal temporarily while defendants considered seeking confidentiality protection.
The plaintiffs and defendants in Handberry v. Thompson, concerning the temporary sealed filing of plaintiffs’ reply and the parties’ planned submission of an unsealed version.
What happened
In Handberry v. Thompson, the plaintiffs asked to file their reply to the defendants’ March 31, 2025 letter under seal. They said they did not claim confidentiality for the reply, but defendants had raised concerns about information in recent filings.
The plaintiffs requested temporary sealing so defendants could seek continued protection for material they considered confidential. Defendants agreed to this process, and the parties agreed to work together on an unsealed version by April 10, 2025.
The document bears a “SO ORDERED” notation dated April 7, 2025, under Magistrate Judge Robert W. Lehrburger, indicating approval of the requested provisional sealed filing. The text does not state that the court made a final confidentiality determination.
The detailed version
- Handberry v. Thompson · No. 1:96-cv-06161
- George Daniels
- Apr. 7, 2025
Background
Plaintiffs’ attorneys asked the court for permission under the judge’s individual rule to file plaintiffs’ reply to defendants’ March 31, 2025 letter under seal. The filing states that plaintiffs had no confidentiality interest in the reply’s contents. It also states that defendants had expressed concerns about disclosure of information they regarded as confidential in certain recent filings, and that those concerns had not yet been resolved by the court or otherwise.
Parties’ Positions
Plaintiffs sought to seal the entire reply temporarily so defendants could decide whether to request continuing protection for any material they believed was confidential. The letter states that defendants agreed to this process. Plaintiffs took no position on any confidentiality request defendants might later file. The parties agreed to work together to submit an unsealed version of the reply by April 10, 2025.
Disposition
The document contains a “SO ORDERED” notation dated April 7, 2025, beneath the name of United States Magistrate Judge Robert W. Lehrburger. This indicates that the court approved the requested provisional sealed filing. The provided text does not state that the court made a final ruling about whether any information was confidential or should remain sealed.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.