Seltzer v. Financial Industry Regulatory Authority
- Willis
- 1:25-cv-01680
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Seltzer v. Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Judge Willis granted requests to correct the docket and seal Seltzer’s contact information.
Susan Seltzer, whose address and telephone number may be filed under seal; the docket was also corrected to reflect a breach-of-contract claim.
What happened
In Susan Seltzer v. Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc., Susan Seltzer asked the court to correct a docket entry and to keep her address and telephone number from public view because of security concerns.
The court granted both requests. The clerk corrected the case number so it reflected a breach-of-contract claim, and the court allowed Seltzer to file her address and telephone number under seal. The court said this personal information was not a “judicial document” relevant to the court’s work, so the usual public-access analysis was unnecessary.
Judge Jennifer E. Willis also directed the clerk to close the docket entries for the sealing motion and the docket-correction request. The order did not decide the breach-of-contract claim.
The detailed version
- Seltzer v. Financial Industry Regulatory Authority · No. 1:25-cv-01680
- Willis
- Sept. 29, 2025
Requests Granted
Susan Seltzer requested correction of a docket entry and permission to file her address and telephone number under seal. She cited concerns involving identity theft, the “dark web,” and personal safety.
The court granted the request to correct the docket entry. The clerk corrected the cause number so that it reflected a breach-of-contract claim.
The court also granted the request to file Seltzer’s address and telephone number under seal. In deciding that request, the court considered whether the information was a “judicial document.” A judicial document is an item relevant to the court’s work and useful in the judicial process. The court held that Seltzer’s personal address and telephone number did not fit that definition. Because they were not judicial documents, the court said it did not need to weigh the public’s right to inspect court records against reasons for keeping the information private.
Disposition
The request to correct the docket entry was granted, and the request to file the address and telephone number under seal was granted. The clerk was asked to close Dkt. Nos. 6 and 9. The order did not decide the underlying breach-of-contract claim.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.