Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Nov. 10, 2025

KN. & LN. 0/b/0 SN. v. Pearl River Union Free School District

Judge
Philip Halpern
Docket
7:25-cv-05883
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
1
Civil ProcedureEvidence
In one sentence

In KN. v. Pearl River Union Free School District, Judge Halpern ordered the public record filing struck and allowed refiling under seal.

Who this affects

The plaintiffs, the school district, the court docket, and the minor student's protected educational and medical information.

What happened

In KN. & LN. 0/b/0 SN. v. Pearl River Union Free School District, the plaintiffs asked to file the administrative record from an education hearing under seal.

The plaintiffs said the record contained protected student education records and private information, including evaluations, medical information, disability details, and educational needs. They also said that redacting the record would make it difficult to understand and that the parties agreed sealing was required.

Judge Philip M. Halpern directed the Clerk to strike the publicly filed, unsealed, unredacted record, identified as Document 11, while retaining the docket’s summary text. The plaintiffs may re-file the certified administrative record under seal.

The detailed version

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

Case
KN. & LN. 0/b/0 SN. v. Pearl River Union Free School District · No. 7:25-cv-05883
Judge
Philip Halpern
Date
Nov. 10, 2025

Request

The plaintiffs filed a letter-motion asking for permission to file under seal the administrative record from an underlying hearing under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. The record was Bates-stamped AR-1 through AR-2314.

Reasons for sealing

The plaintiffs stated that the record contained student education records protected by the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act, as well as personally identifying information about a minor student with disabilities. They identified materials such as individualized education programs, psychological and educational evaluations, progress reports, medical diagnoses, and descriptions of the student’s disabilities and educational needs. They argued that the record should be sealed in full because protected information appeared throughout it and extensive redaction would make the record difficult to understand. The plaintiffs also stated that counsel for all parties agreed that sealing was required by federal privacy and confidentiality rules.

Court’s action

The court observed that the plaintiffs had apparently filed the unsealed, unredacted administrative record publicly as Document 11. Judge Philip M. Halpern directed the Clerk of Court to strike Document 11 from the docket but retain the summary docket text for the record. The plaintiffs may re-file the certified administrative record under seal. The opinion does not separately state that the letter-motion was granted or denied; it states the filing instructions described above.

The authoritative version

Read the full 1-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.