KN. & LN. 0/b/0 SN. v. Pearl River Union Free School District
- Philip Halpern
- 7:25-cv-05883
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In KN. v. Pearl River Union Free School District, Judge Halpern ordered the public record filing struck and allowed refiling under seal.
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
- KN. & LN. 0/b/0 SN. v. Pearl River Union Free School District · No. 7:25-cv-05883
- Philip Halpern
- 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.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.