Miah v. Morgan Stanley & Co. International PLC
- Paul Engelmayer
- 1:25-cv-01208
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 5
In Miah v. Morgan Stanley, Magistrate Judge Ricardo denied without prejudice Miah’s request to redact his address from a public service document.
Habib Miah, the defendants whose affirmation of service was at issue, and members of the public who may access the court docket.
What happened
In Miah v. Morgan Stanley & Co. International PLC, Habib Miah asked the court to remove his home address from Defendants’ affirmation of service, a filing showing that he had been notified of the case. Miah said publishing the address created privacy and security concerns.
The court denied the request without prejudice. It said the service document is generally subject to public access because it helps the court determine whether proper notice was given. Miah had not explained his privacy or security concerns in enough detail for the court to weigh them against public access. The court also noted that the rules do not automatically require redaction of an address in a civil case and that Miah had already filed his address publicly at least twelve times.
Magistrate Judge Henry J. Ricardo said Miah may file a renewed motion addressing the issues identified in the order. The clerk was directed to terminate the motion as denied and mail the order to Miah, who was representing himself.
The detailed version
- Miah v. Morgan Stanley & Co. International PLC · No. 1:25-cv-01208
- Paul Engelmayer
- May 9, 2025
Background
Habib Miah moved to redact his personal address from ECF No. 35, Defendants’ affirmation of service. An affirmation of service is a filing used to show that a party was properly notified of legal proceedings. The opinion states that Miah was proceeding without a lawyer and had not consented to electronic service.
Legal standard
Court filings that qualify as judicial documents carry a presumptive right of public access. A judicial document is a filing placed before the court that is relevant to the court’s work and useful in the judicial process. Courts first determine whether the filing is a judicial document, then assess the strength of the public-access presumption, and finally balance that presumption against legitimate reasons for withholding information, including privacy interests.
Court’s analysis
The court held that the affirmation of service was a judicial document because it helped establish that Miah received proper notice. The court found that the document carried a presumption of public access stronger than documents playing only a minor role in the court’s work, but weaker than documents directly determining substantive rights.
Miah asserted that including his home address created serious privacy and security concerns, but he did not describe those concerns sufficiently for the court to evaluate them. The court also noted that Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 5.2(a) identifies certain information presumed to require redaction, such as Social Security numbers, birth dates, minor children’s names, and financial-account numbers, but does not include a party’s address. The court further stated that the Southern District of New York’s electronic-filing rules require redaction of a home address in criminal cases, not civil cases.
The court additionally reasoned that redacting the address from the affirmation of service would not effectively address Miah’s concern because he had filed his home address on the public docket at least twelve times.
Disposition
Judge Henry J. Ricardo denied Miah’s motion without prejudice to a renewed motion addressing the points raised in the order. The clerk was directed to terminate ECF No. 37 as denied and mail a copy of the order to Miah.
Read the full 5-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.