House v. City of New York
- Paul Engelmayer
- 1:18-cv-06693
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In House v. City of New York, Judge Engelmayer ordered an unredacted joint fact statement for review before deciding whether to seal it.
The parties to the case, particularly defendant Seepaul, whose privacy and reputational interests were cited in support of sealing information.
What happened
In Anthony House v. City of New York, the parties jointly asked to file a statement of agreed facts under seal. They said it contained confidential personnel and disciplinary information covered by a protective order, including information about defendant Seepaul.
The parties argued that privacy and reputation concerns outweighed the public’s limited right to view the redacted material. They referred to an earlier order allowing related disciplinary documents to be filed under seal.
Judge Engelmayer did not yet grant or deny the sealing request. He ordered the parties to email an unredacted version highlighting the proposed redactions and said he would rule after reviewing them.
The detailed version
- House v. City of New York · No. 1:18-cv-06693
- Paul Engelmayer
- Dec. 10, 2019
Background
The City of New York and the Department of Correction, represented by the City’s Law Department, asked on behalf of all parties for permission to file a Joint Statement of Stipulated Facts under seal. The letter states that a redacted version had been filed on December 6, 2019, pursuant to an earlier court order.
The parties said the proposed sealed filing included information designated confidential under a protective order. The protected information consisted of Department of Correction personnel and disciplinary records and information related to defendant Seepaul. The parties argued that Seepaul’s privacy and reputational interests outweighed the presumption that court filings should be publicly accessible.
Court’s Action
The court did not decide whether the joint statement should be sealed. Instead, it directed the parties to submit an unredacted version by email, with the portions redacted from the filed version highlighted. The court stated that it would rule on the sealing request after reviewing the proposed redactions.
Disposition
The court ordered the additional submission and deferred ruling on the request to file the joint statement under seal. The opinion does not state that the request was granted or denied.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.