Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Apr. 9, 2025

Shinagawa v. Bui

Judge
Ona Wang
Docket
1:22-cv-10173
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
2
Civil Procedure
In one sentence

In Shinagawa v. Bui, Judge Wang granted a motion to seal an unredacted infant-compromise order protecting a child’s full name.

Who this affects

The ruling affects the plaintiffs’ ability to file the unredacted infant-compromise order and protects the privacy of the infant whose full name appears in that document; the defendants did not object.

What happened

In Shinagawa v. Bui, the plaintiffs asked the court to file an unredacted infant-compromise order under seal. The redacted order had already been filed publicly, and the unredacted version included the infant’s full name.

The plaintiffs said sealing would protect the infant’s privacy and help with applications to the New York Medical Indemnity Fund and with opening approved guardianship bank accounts. They also said the unredacted version was not being used to decide the parties’ legal rights, and the defendants did not object.

Judge Ona T. Wang granted the motion to seal. The order does not provide additional reasoning or separately describe the scope of the sealing beyond granting the motion.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
Shinagawa v. Bui · No. 1:22-cv-10173
Judge
Ona Wang
Date
Apr. 9, 2025

Background

The document concerns an infant-compromise order approving a settlement on behalf of a minor. The court had signed the order on April 4, 2025, and a redacted version had been filed under ECF No. 121. The plaintiffs sought to file an unredacted, signed version under seal because it contains the infant’s full name.

Request and stated reasons

The plaintiffs argued that the unredacted order had little connection to the exercise of the court’s judicial power because it was not being used to decide the parties’ substantive legal rights, was not the basis for the adjudication, and was not a pleading or summary-judgment motion. They also asserted a strong privacy interest in protecting the infant’s full name and said the proposed sealing was narrowly tailored. The defendants did not object. The plaintiffs stated that access to the unredacted order would assist with applications to the New York Medical Indemnity Fund and with opening guardianship bank accounts approved under the order.

Ruling

Judge Ona T. Wang granted the motion to seal. The short endorsed order does not provide further reasoning or separately specify whether it seals only the attached unredacted order, the signed unredacted order, or both beyond granting the motion to seal.

The authoritative version

Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.