Sango v. City of New York
- Ronnie Abrams
- 1:24-cv-00142
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Sango v. City of New York, Judge Tarnofsky ordered affidavits filed publicly and medical records sealed.
The ruling affects Bougoura Desire Sango, his son, the defendants, court personnel, case participants, and members of the public seeking access to the submitted materials.
What happened
In Sango v. City of New York, Bougoura Desire Sango, who did not have a lawyer, submitted affidavits and medical records to oppose the defendants’ motion to dismiss. The court had temporarily sealed the entire submission because some materials were personal and sensitive.
The court found that the materials were judicial documents because they supported opposition to a potentially case-ending motion. Although that created a strong presumption that the public could view them, the court found that privacy concerns justified sealing Sango’s and his son’s medical records. The affidavits did not contain similarly sensitive information.
Judge Robyn F. Tarnofsky ordered the affidavits filed publicly as Exhibit A. She ordered the medical records filed as Exhibit B and sealed from everyone except court personnel and case participants, while keeping the original filing sealed.
The detailed version
- Sango v. City of New York · No. 1:24-cv-00142
- Ronnie Abrams
- July 30, 2025
Background
On February 12, 2025, Plaintiff Bougoura Desire Sango submitted materials supporting his opposition to Defendants’ motion to dismiss. The submission included affidavits from Sango, his wife, and four fellow congregants, as well as Sango’s physical therapy records and his son’s psychotherapy records.
Because some of the materials were personal and sensitive, the court temporarily sealed the submission at ECF 46 while considering whether permanent sealing was appropriate.
Legal standard
The court explained that judicial documents are presumed to be accessible to the public. It applied a three-step test: whether the documents are judicial documents useful in the court’s work; the strength of the public-access presumption; and whether competing interests, including privacy, outweigh that presumption.
The court determined that all of the submitted materials were judicial documents because Sango filed them to oppose a motion to dismiss. The documents received the highest level of public-access protection because they were submitted in connection with a motion that could potentially end the case.
Ruling
The court found that the privacy interests in Sango’s and his son’s medical records outweighed the strong presumption of public access. It found no comparable competing privacy interests in the affidavits.
The court ordered the affidavits filed publicly as Exhibit A. It ordered the medical records filed as Exhibit B and directed the Clerk of Court to seal Exhibit B, allowing access only to court personnel and case participants. The court also ordered that the original filing at ECF 46 remain sealed.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.