Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Oct. 31, 2025

Lawson v. Paramount Global and Black Entertainment Television LLC

Judge
Ho
Docket
1:24-cv-03315
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
3
Civil ProcedureEmployment
In one sentence

In Lawson v. Paramount Global, Judge Ho granted permission to redact sensitive information from filed letter motions.

Who this affects

The order affects Paramount Global, Black Entertainment Television LLC, Keith Lawson, and third parties whose personal, identifying, or sensitive information appeared in the letter motions or exhibits.

What happened

In Lawson v. Paramount Global and Black Entertainment Television LLC, the defendants asked to redact information from two letter motions and their exhibits.

The requested redactions covered third parties’ identifying information, a photograph, a BET client’s name, personal contact information, and Lawson’s salary and incentive compensation information. Lawson did not object.

Judge Ho granted the application, finding the proposed redactions narrowly tailored to overcome the public-access presumption, and directed the Clerk to terminate ECF No. 49.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
Lawson v. Paramount Global and Black Entertainment Television LLC · No. 1:24-cv-03315
Judge
Ho
Date
Oct. 31, 2025

Background

Defendants Paramount Global and Black Entertainment Television LLC asked the court for permission to redact information from the parties’ letter motions at ECF Nos. 46 and 47 and their exhibits. The materials concerned, among other things, whether Fania N. Washington, Senior Vice President, Employment Law, acted as a fact-finder and investigated Plaintiff Keith Lawson.

Requested Redactions

The defendants sought permission to redact:

- Names and other identifying information about third parties, including an actress involved in sexual-harassment allegations, as well as a photograph showing part of the actress’s body in a bikini; - The name of a BET client connected to events on a business trip; - Cell phone numbers, home addresses, and similar personally identifiable information; and - Lawson’s salary and incentive compensation information in his employment agreement.

The defendants argued that the information was private or sensitive, was not relevant to the relief requested in the letter motions, or could create competitive harm. The opinion states that Lawson did not object to the requested relief.

Ruling

Judge Dale E. Ho granted the application. The court found that the proposed redactions were narrowly tailored to overcome the presumption that judicial documents should be publicly accessible. The court directed the Clerk of Court to terminate ECF No. 49.

The authoritative version

Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.