Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Aug. 5, 2025

D.G. v. New York City Department Of Education

Judge
John Cronan
Docket
1:25-cv-02118
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
1
Civil ProcedureDiscovery
In one sentence

D.G. v. New York City Department of Education: Judge Cronan ordered production and sealed filing of E.G.’s administrative record.

Who this affects

D.G., S.G., E.G., the New York City Department of Education, Melissa Aviles-Ramos, and the attorneys handling the administrative record.

What happened

In D.G. v. New York City Department of Education, the court addressed the handling of an administrative record from a state education appeal involving E.G.’s medical and educational records.

The court ordered the Office of State Review to provide a certified copy of the record to the plaintiffs’ counsel. After receiving it, plaintiffs’ counsel must give a copy to the defendants’ counsel and file the record with the court under seal.

Judge John P. Cronan granted the unopposed motion to file the record under seal, finding that E.G.’s privacy interests outweighed the public’s right to access the records. The Clerk was directed to close the related docket entry.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
D.G. v. New York City Department Of Education · No. 1:25-cv-02118
Judge
John Cronan
Date
Aug. 5, 2025

Order

The court ordered the Office of State Review of the New York State Education Department to provide plaintiffs’ counsel with a certified copy of the administrative record in Office of State Review Appeal No. 24-398.

After receiving the certified record, plaintiffs’ counsel must provide a copy to defendants’ counsel and file the record with the court under seal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 5.2(d).

Sealing Decision

The court granted the unopposed motion to file the certified administrative record under seal. It found that E.G.’s privacy interests in medical and educational records outweighed the public’s right of access. The Clerk was directed to close Docket 21.

The order addressed record production and confidentiality; it did not decide the underlying claims.

The authoritative version

Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.