Derrica v. Tura
- Vernon Broderick
- 1:21-cv-08820
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Jamie Derrica v. Tura, Inc., Judge Broderick ordered more information before deciding Derrica’s request to redact her name and seal filings.
Jamie Derrica and Tura, Inc.; the order also concerns public access to the court’s filings.
What happened
Jamie Derrica v. Tura, Inc. had been voluntarily dismissed with prejudice in 2023. Derrica, representing herself, later asked the court to replace her name with initials or “Jane Doe” and temporarily seal court filings because she reported harassment by a former co-worker.
The court said filed documents are generally presumed public, but Derrica had provided few details about the alleged harassment and had not shown which filings should be sealed. The court also said it was unclear whether she had met the required process for sealing documents.
Judge Vernon S. Broderick did not decide the request. He ordered Derrica to provide harassment communications or a sworn statement by September 22, 2025, ordered Tura, Inc. to respond by October 6, and allowed Derrica to reply in no more than three pages by October 20.
The detailed version
- Derrica v. Tura · No. 1:21-cv-08820
- Vernon Broderick
- Sept. 8, 2025
Background
The parties stipulated to voluntarily dismiss this action with prejudice on March 27, 2023. On September 5, 2025, Jamie Derrica, who was proceeding without a lawyer, filed a letter motion asking the court to redact her name from all filed documents and replace it with her initials or “Jane Doe.” She said she was facing harassment by phone, email, and in person from a former co-worker who knew about her litigation history against their mutual former employer. She also asked the court to seal all filings temporarily until they could be redacted.
Court’s analysis
The court explained that a judicial document is a filed item relevant to the court’s work and useful in the judicial process. Such documents are presumptively public because public access promotes accountability and confidence in the administration of justice. The court noted that Derrica attached a police report but did not provide details about the alleged harassment, such as its dates, times, content, or context, or identify the former co-worker. The court also said it was unclear which filings were judicial documents entitled to a presumption of public access and whether Derrica had satisfied the required three-step process for sealing documents.
Order
The court did not grant or deny Derrica’s request to redact her name or seal the filings. Instead, it ordered Derrica to submit, by September 22, 2025, copies of the communications that constituted the alleged harassment and/or a sworn affidavit describing their details and content. If she did not want to file those materials publicly, she could email them to the judge’s chambers, explain why they should not be public, and include defense counsel in the email thread. The court ordered Tura, Inc. to submit a letter by October 6, 2025, stating whether it objected, addressing the applicable law and its application, and identifying other relevant considerations. Derrica could file a reply of no more than three pages by October 20, 2025. The Clerk was directed to mail the order to Derrica.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.