D.G. v. New York City Department Of Education
- John Cronan
- 1:25-cv-02118
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In D.G. v. New York City Department of Education, Judge Cronan directed the Department to respond to a request to seal an administrative record.
The order directly affects the plaintiffs and the New York City Department of Education. The requested sealing concerns E.G.’s educational and medical records and personally identifiable information.
What happened
D.G. et al. v. New York City Department of Education concerns the plaintiffs’ request for review of a state education official’s decision involving E.G., a student with a disability.
The plaintiffs’ lawyer asked how the administrative record should be submitted and requested permission to file it under seal because it contains sensitive educational and medical information and personally identifying details. The lawyer also asked whether the court wanted a certified paper copy.
Judge John P. Cronan directed the Department of Education to state by August 4, 2025, whether it objected to sealing the record. The order did not itself grant or deny the sealing request.
The detailed version
- D.G. v. New York City Department Of Education · No. 1:25-cv-02118
- John Cronan
- July 30, 2025
Background
The plaintiffs seek review of a decision by a New York State education review officer concerning E.G., identified in the letter as a student with a disability, after an administrative hearing. The New York State Education Department’s Office of State Review held the administrative record electronically and was expected to provide it to the plaintiffs’ counsel for filing.
Requests in the Letter
The plaintiffs’ counsel asked the court for instructions about how to submit the administrative record and whether the court wanted a certified paper copy sent directly to chambers. Counsel also requested permission to file the record under seal. The letter stated that the record contains confidential educational and medical information and personally identifiable information concerning the student. Counsel cited the general presumption that judicial documents are publicly accessible and argued that the student’s privacy interests justified sealing the record.
Court’s Action
Judge John P. Cronan directed the New York City Department of Education to file a response by August 4, 2025, stating whether it objected to sealing the administrative record. The order did not grant or deny the request to seal and did not state how the record should ultimately be filed. It also did not rule on the request for a certified paper copy.
Disposition
The court ordered a response from the defendant concerning the sealing request. This was a procedural order addressing submission and potential sealing of the administrative record, not a decision on the underlying education dispute.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.