Odermatt v. The Mount Sinai Hospital

Background

On June 2, 2025, Emily Odermatt filed a motion under seal seeking a written protective order under Rules 1 and 26 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. She sought protection for information concerning participation in research studies covered by Certificates of Confidentiality. On June 18, 2025, the court denied that motion for reasons stated on the record. Odermatt then filed a motion for reconsideration under seal.

Motion for Reconsideration

The court explained that reconsideration is an extraordinary remedy generally granted only when the moving party identifies a change in controlling law, new evidence, a clear error, or a need to prevent serious unfairness. Odermatt argued that waiting until trial or responding to a later filing—such as a summary-judgment motion—could result in privileged information being publicly disclosed and cause her to lose the protection she claimed.

The court found that Odermatt had not shown clear error or serious unfairness arising from the June 18 order. To the extent she wanted the court to treat her earlier protective-order motion as a motion in limine—a request to resolve evidentiary issues before trial—the court found that request premature. The court said she could file a motion in limine, if necessary, after the court decided the parties’ expected summary-judgment motions.

The court also described a process for handling confidential information in future summary-judgment filings. If documents are designated confidential, the parties must discuss before filing whether the motions, redacted portions, or exhibits should be filed under seal. If a sealed filing is made, the party maintaining the sealing request must file a letter within three days explaining why continued sealing or redaction is needed. The parties must follow the same process for references to research-study participation covered by Certificates of Confidentiality.

Sealing Decision and Disposition

The court had temporarily allowed the reconsideration motion to be filed under seal while it considered whether sealing was justified. It applied the common-law right of public access to judicial documents, which requires determining whether the material is a judicial document, assessing the strength of the presumption of public access, and balancing that presumption against specifically described competing interests.

The court determined that a motion for reconsideration is a judicial document ordinarily entitled to a strong presumption of public access. It found that Odermatt had not identified a specific reason to seal the entire motion, that the motion discussed privileged and immune information only in general terms without disclosing specific protected information, and that she had not complied with the court’s rules requiring a letter explaining the particular reasons for sealing.

Judge Jennifer L. Rochon denied Odermatt’s motion for reconsideration. The court further ruled that the motion should not be maintained under seal and ordered that it be filed on the docket because it did not disclose privileged or confidential information and Odermatt had provided no reason for sealing it.