Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled May 2, 2025

Diaz v. Aviles-Ramos

Judge
Rochon
Docket
1:24-cv-09340
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
2
Civil ProcedureADA / Disability
In one sentence

In Diaz v. Aviles-Ramos, Judge Rochon temporarily restricted public access to filings containing student information and ordered a response to defendants’ sealing request.

Who this affects

The plaintiffs, the student whose identifying information appeared in the exhibits, the defendants, and public access to Docket Entry 29 and related exhibits.

What happened

Diaz v. Aviles-Ramos is an Individuals with Disabilities Education Act case concerning allegations that the New York City Department of Education did not fully implement two administrative decisions. Defendants said exhibits filed by the plaintiffs included the student’s identifying information.

Defendants objected to the exhibits and asked the court to remove them from the public docket, citing privacy and filing rules. The court temporarily restricted viewing of Docket Entry 29 and related exhibits to the parties in the case and required the plaintiffs to respond to the request to seal by May 5, 2025.

Judge Jennifer L. Rochon issued this temporary-access order on May 2, 2025. The provided text does not show a final ruling on whether the exhibits would be sealed or struck from the docket.

The detailed version

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

Case
Diaz v. Aviles-Ramos · No. 1:24-cv-09340
Judge
Rochon
Date
May 2, 2025

Background

The provided text contains a letter from defendants’ counsel and Judge Rochon’s short order. Defendants are the New York City Department of Education and Melissa Aviles-Ramos, in her official capacity as Chancellor of the New York City Department of Education. The action was brought under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. Defendants stated that the plaintiffs alleged the Department of Education had not fully implemented two administrative decisions that were not appealed.

Privacy Objection

Defendants objected to the plaintiffs’ filing of Exhibits A through I with their statement responding to another party’s factual statement. According to defendants, those documents contained unredacted personally identifying information about the student, including an identification number, date of birth, family name, and address. Defendants also asserted that the filing violated court rules and federal privacy protections, including rules concerning personally identifying information in education records and electronic court filings.

Defendants asked the court to strike the documents from the public docket. The opinion text does not state that the court decided whether the documents actually violated those rules or whether they should ultimately be struck or sealed.

Court’s Action

In light of defendants’ request, the court directed the Clerk of Court to temporarily restrict viewing of Docket Entry 29, including Docket Entries 29-2 through 29-10, to case participants. The court directed the plaintiffs to file any response to defendants’ request to seal by May 5, 2025.

Judge Jennifer L. Rochon’s order was therefore a temporary docket-access restriction and a deadline for a response. The provided text does not include a final ruling on the request to seal or the request to strike the exhibits.

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.