Flores v. The City Of New York
- Ronnie Abrams
- 1:21-cv-05861
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Flores v. The City Of New York, Judge Abrams temporarily sealed a settlement-approval decision while requiring public justification for sealing or redactions.
The plaintiffs, the City of New York, National Railroad Passenger Corporation doing business as Amtrak, and the public’s access to the settlement-related court records.
What happened
In Flores v. The City Of New York, the parties asked the court to keep confidential an opinion and order approving their settlement. The case involves Sugely Flores, Yvelise Beltre, Oscar Moronta, the City of New York, and National Railroad Passenger Corporation, doing business as Amtrak.
The court explained that judicial records generally carry a presumption of public access, and that a private confidentiality agreement alone does not overcome that presumption. The parties must publicly file a letter by August 19, 2025, explaining why the plaintiffs’ settlement motion and the court’s settlement-approval decision should be sealed or redacted.
Judge Abrams temporarily sealed the court’s August 12, 2025 decision approving the settlement until the court rules on the sealing request. The order did not finally decide whether the materials should remain sealed.
The detailed version
- Flores v. The City Of New York · No. 1:21-cv-05861
- Ronnie Abrams
- Aug. 13, 2025
Background
The parties asked the court to seal its opinion and order approving a settlement because they had agreed that the settlement would remain confidential. The plaintiffs are Sugely Flores, proposed administratrix of the estate of the infant M.F. and suing individually; Yvelise Beltre, proposed administratrix of the estate of the infant I.M. and suing individually; and Oscar Moronta. The defendants are the City of New York and National Railroad Passenger Corporation, doing business as Amtrak.
Access to Judicial Documents
The court stated that the common-law presumption of public access applies to “judicial documents”—materials relevant to the court’s function and useful in the judicial process. It explained that the parties’ agreement to keep information confidential is not, by itself, enough to justify sealing court records. Settlement terms submitted for court approval are generally subject to public access.
The court cited the requirement that sealing be supported by specific findings showing that it is necessary to protect higher values and is narrowly tailored to achieve that purpose.
Order
The parties must publicly file, no later than August 19, 2025, a letter justifying their requests to seal or redact the plaintiffs’ settlement motion and the court’s decision approving the settlement, consistent with Rule 5(A) of the court’s Individual Rules and Practices in Civil Cases.
Until the court rules on the request, the court’s August 12, 2025 decision approving the settlement will remain temporarily sealed. The August 13 order therefore required public justification and imposed temporary sealing; it did not make a final ruling on whether the materials should ultimately be sealed or redacted.
Disposition
Judge Ronnie Abrams issued an order governing the parties’ sealing request and temporarily sealed the settlement-approval decision pending further review.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.