Konyukhova v. Walgreen Company
- Valerie Caproni
- 1:24-cv-04390
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Konyukhova v. Walgreen Company, Judge Aaron granted reconsideration and ordered redacted filings to protect medical privacy.
Esmiralda Konyukhova, whose medical and health-related information in eight public docket entries may be redacted; the defendants and the public are affected by the resulting access restrictions.
What happened
In Esmiralda Konyukhova v. Walgreen Company, et al., Esmiralda Konyukhova asked the court to reconsider its decision refusing her proposed redactions of medical and health-related information in several public filings.
Konyukhova, who represented herself, had previously received permission to restrict similar information in her Second and Third Amended Complaints. The court concluded that it had overlooked those earlier orders and that she continued to have significant privacy rights in her medical information.
The court granted Konyukhova’s motion for reconsideration and ordered her to file redacted versions of eight docket entries by October 3, 2025. The order was signed by Magistrate Judge Stewart D. Aaron.
The detailed version
- Konyukhova v. Walgreen Company · No. 1:24-cv-04390
- Valerie Caproni
- Sept. 25, 2025
Background
Esmiralda Konyukhova, representing herself, asked the court to reconsider its September 9, 2025 order denying her proposed redactions. Her earlier request sought to seal several filings and to require redaction or sealing of medical and health-related information concerning her and her family in future filings.
The court had previously denied that request without prejudice and directed Konyukhova to propose specific redactions. After she submitted proposed redactions, including for additional docket entries, the court denied them on September 9, 2025. Konyukhova then moved for reconsideration under Local Civil Rule 6.3(b) and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(6).
Court’s reasoning
The court explained that reconsideration generally requires a party to identify controlling decisions or information that the court overlooked and that could reasonably change its conclusion. Konyukhova correctly pointed out that, before she filed her Second and Third Amended Complaints, the court had allowed her medical and health-related information in those documents to be available only to the parties rather than the public.
The court found that it had overlooked those earlier orders. Because much of the information Konyukhova sought to redact from other public filings was the same type of information the court had previously allowed her to redact, the court found that permitting the proposed redactions was consistent with its earlier decisions. The court also found that Konyukhova continued to have significant privacy rights in her medical information, even though much of it had already appeared on the public docket.
Ruling
The court granted Konyukhova’s motion for reconsideration. It ordered her to file redacted versions of ECF Nos. 1, 16, 22, 24, 77, 79, 177, and 182 by October 3, 2025. The opinion was signed by Stewart D. Aaron, United States Magistrate Judge.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.