Sabic-El-Rayess v. Coll.
- Jesse Furman
- 1:24-cv-02891
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Sabic-El-Rayess v. Tchrs. Coll., Judge Furman temporarily granted sealing while postponing the final decision on public access.
The temporary sealing ruling affects the parties’ motion-related exhibits and the public’s access to them. It also concerns the privacy interests of non-parties whose educational and professional information appears in the materials.
What happened
In Sabic-El-Rayess v. Tchrs. Coll., Dr. Amra Sabic-El-Rayess asked the court to keep certain exhibits under seal. The exhibits included documents produced as confidential, expert-report versions, and a report discussing the plaintiff and alleged comparators.
Teachers College asked to seal two exhibits containing changes between versions of an expert report. The plaintiff also asked to seal Exhibits A through E and G, arguing that the materials included sensitive educational and professional information about people who were not parties to the case.
Judge Furman temporarily granted the plaintiff’s request to seal. The court said it would decide later whether the materials should remain sealed or be redacted when ruling on the underlying motion, and directed the Clerk of Court to terminate docket entries 126 and 133.
The detailed version
- Sabic-El-Rayess v. Coll. · No. 1:24-cv-02891
- Jesse Furman
- Oct. 1, 2025
Background
The opinion consists of a letter submitted for Dr. Amra Sabic-El-Rayess and a brief order by the court. The letter concerns requests to seal exhibits connected to Teachers College, Columbia University’s motion to strike and the plaintiff’s response to that motion.
The defendant sought to seal Exhibits C and D. Exhibit C was a redline—a document showing changes—between two versions of Dr. Nathan Alleman’s expert report. Exhibit D contained redlines comparing three versions of that report. The plaintiff sought to seal Exhibits A through E and G of her response. According to the letter, Exhibits A through E were documents produced by the defendant as confidential, and Exhibit G was a clean version of Dr. Alleman’s September 26, 2025 supplemental report.
Parties’ Positions
The plaintiff argued that Exhibit C was not a “judicial document” because it was irrelevant to deciding the motion to strike, particularly because she did not intend to introduce one of the report versions. She also argued that the privacy interests of Ansley Erickson, Na Lor, Rajashi Ghosh, and Patricia Hewlin supported sealing Exhibits C and D and Exhibit G. The letter stated that the expert report compared the plaintiff’s experience and credentials with those of the alleged comparators and could reveal sensitive educational and professional information about non-parties.
The letter described the applicable three-step standard for sealing: determining whether the presumption of public access applies, deciding how much weight that presumption has, and balancing it against competing concerns such as privacy interests. The letter asked that the identified exhibits remain sealed.
Ruling
Judge Furman temporarily granted the plaintiff’s motion to seal. The court stated that it would assess whether to keep sealed or redact the materials at issue in the plaintiff’s motion and the materials at issue in the defendant’s motion, identified as ECF No. 126, when deciding the underlying motion. The order also directed the Clerk of Court to terminate ECF Nos. 126 and 133.
The order did not make a final determination that the materials would remain sealed, did not state that any materials must be unsealed, and did not decide the underlying motion to strike.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.