Dodd v. City University of New York
- Paul Engelmayer
- 1:17-cv-09932
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Dodd v. City University of New York, Judge Engelmayer denied part of a sealing request without prejudice and granted the rest.
Lynda G. Dodd and the defendants, because the order controlled which documents supporting Dodd’s opposition to summary judgment could be filed publicly or under seal.
What happened
In Dodd v. City University of New York, Lynda G. Dodd asked to seal or redact documents connected to her opposition to the defendants’ motion for summary judgment. She sought to seal some exhibits completely and to file other exhibits, deposition transcripts, her legal brief, and her statement of facts with redactions.
The court denied without prejudice the request to seal exhibits completely. It said many of those documents appeared to contain material that could be filed publicly and ordered Dodd to propose narrowly tailored redactions. The court approved the proposed redactions for the other documents and granted that part of her request.
Judge Paul A. Engelmayer issued the order on November 25, 2019. The defendants could file unredacted versions of the first group under seal and redacted versions publicly after the court reviewed and approved the proposed redactions.
The detailed version
- Dodd v. City University of New York · No. 1:17-cv-09932
- Paul Engelmayer
- Nov. 25, 2019
Background
Lynda G. Dodd sent the court a letter requesting permission to restrict public access to filings supporting her opposition to the defendants’ motion for summary judgment. Her request covered three categories: exhibits to be filed entirely under seal; exhibits and deposition transcripts to be filed under seal with redactions; and her legal memorandum and statement responding to the defendants’ factual assertions, also to be filed under seal with redactions.
Rulings
The court denied, without prejudice, Dodd’s request to file the first category entirely under seal. The court stated that the documents carried a strong presumption of public access and that many, if not all, appeared to contain portions that could be filed publicly. As an example, the court identified an exhibit containing an academic’s curriculum vitae followed by evaluation letters; the court indicated that some information might be appropriate for redaction while other information appeared public.
The court directed Dodd to make a good-faith effort to propose narrowly tailored redactions to those exhibits by November 26, 2019. After reviewing and approving the proposed redactions, the defendants could file unredacted versions under seal and redacted versions on the court’s electronic filing system.
For the second and third categories, the court approved the proposed redactions and granted Dodd’s request concerning those documents. The order addressed only the sealing and redaction requests; it did not decide the underlying motion for summary judgment.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.