Whittle v. Anderson
- Clarke
- 7:25-cv-06503
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Whittle v. Anderson, Judge Clarke denied in part a request to seal the docket, requiring redaction or initials for the victim’s name.
Robert Whittle, the respondent, the alleged victim, and the parties’ future court filings were affected; the docket remained public, but the victim’s name must be redacted or replaced with initials.
What happened
Whittle v. Anderson concerns Robert Whittle’s petition asking a federal court to review his state-court conviction. The case is before the Southern District of New York.
The Westchester County District Attorney asked the court to seal the docket and materials filed with the court because they identify a victim whose privacy is protected under New York law. The request also noted that Whittle was incarcerated and not represented by a lawyer.
Judge Jessica G. L. Clarke denied the application in part. She ordered that the docket remain open, directed the parties to redact the victim’s name or use initials in filings, and directed the Clerk to terminate ECF No. 9.
The detailed version
- Whittle v. Anderson · No. 7:25-cv-06503
- Clarke
- Oct. 22, 2025
Background
Robert Whittle filed a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 challenging a judgment from Westchester County Court. The opinion states that he was convicted after a jury trial of second-degree burglary, among other crimes, and acquitted of two counts of first-degree sexual abuse.
The Westchester County District Attorney asked the court to seal the docket and the affidavit, legal memorandum, exhibits, and state-court records that the respondent was filing. The request was based on the presence of the alleged victim’s name in those materials and on New York Civil Rights Law § 50-b, which protects the identity of sex-offense victims. The request stated that Whittle was incarcerated, had no lawyer, and had not been asked for his position on the request.
Ruling
Judge Jessica G. L. Clarke denied the application in part. The docket was not sealed. Instead, the court ordered the parties to redact the victim’s name from filings or refer to the victim by initials. The Clerk of Court was directed to terminate ECF No. 9. This order addressed the sealing request and did not decide the merits of Whittle’s petition.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.