Singh v. The Trustees of Columbia University in the City of New York
- Vargas
- 1:23-cv-09846
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In Singh v. Trustees, Judge Vargas found proposed redactions of settlement discussions narrowly tailored and directed termination of ECF No. 52.
Harinder Jeet Singh, the Trustees of Columbia University in the City of New York, and public access to the pretrial-conference transcript.
What happened
In Singh v. The Trustees of Columbia University in the City of New York, the dispute concerned whether settlement discussions from a May 21, 2025 pretrial conference should be redacted from the transcript.
Singh opposed removing the settlement discussions, saying he had been willing to make a reasonable settlement and that the defendant was not serious about settling. He left the decision to the court.
Judge Jeannette A. Vargas found that the proposed redactions were narrowly tailored to protect the confidentiality of settlement discussions in the Southern District of New York’s mediation program and consistent with public access to court documents. She directed the Clerk of Court to terminate ECF No. 52.
The detailed version
- Singh v. The Trustees of Columbia University in the City of New York · No. 1:23-cv-09846
- Vargas
- June 13, 2025
Background
The matter concerned a request to redact or seal settlement discussions from a transcript of a May 21, 2025 pretrial conference. The opinion states that the proposed redactions concerned settlement discussions before the Southern District of New York Mediation Program. The text identifying the proposed redactions is partially obscured.
Singh’s Position
Singh opposed redacting the settlement-discussion portion of the transcript. He stated that he had been open to a reasonable settlement but believed the defendant was not serious about settling. He nevertheless left the issue to the court.
Ruling
The court determined that the proposed redactions were narrowly tailored to preserve the confidentiality of the settlement discussions and were consistent with the presumption that judicial documents are publicly accessible. Judge Jeannette A. Vargas directed the Clerk of Court to terminate ECF No. 52. The opinion does not expressly use the words “granted” or “denied” for the underlying letter motion, and the OCR text does not clearly identify the precise redactions.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.