Harris v. The Bronx Parent Housing Network, Inc.
- George Daniels
- 1:18-cv-11681
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Harris v. The Bronx Parent Housing Network, Judge Netburn directed a public sealing request and set deadlines for Defendant’s protective-order motion.
Defendant was required to submit a public, specific request to file materials under seal, and Plaintiff was given an opportunity to respond. The court would decide the sealing request after those filings.
What happened
In Harris v. The Bronx Parent Housing Network, Inc., the Defendant emailed the court two similar letters seeking a protective order or to cancel a subpoena, and said the letters were filed under seal.
The court explained that confidential materials may be filed under seal only when the court allows it. It directed Defendant to file a public letter explaining why sealing was necessary and addressing the required legal standard, without including the confidential information itself.
United States Magistrate Judge Sarah Netburn set February 19, 2020, as the deadline for Defendant’s letter and February 24, 2020, for Plaintiff’s response, after which the court would decide whether the motion could be filed under seal.
The detailed version
- Harris v. The Bronx Parent Housing Network, Inc. · No. 1:18-cv-11681
- George Daniels
- Feb. 14, 2020
Background
On February 6, 2020, the court received an ex parte letter motion from Defendant by email seeking a “protective order/motion to quash.” Defendant stated that the motion had been filed under seal. On February 11, 2020, Defendant sent a second, substantially similar letter by email, copying Plaintiff and again stating that the letter was filed under seal.
Court’s directive
The court reminded Defendant that confidential materials could be redacted or filed under seal only as directed by the court after an appropriate application. Defendant was directed to file a specific request by letter explaining the reasons for seeking to file the submission under seal and addressing the request in light of the Court of Appeals’ decision in Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga.
The letter motion had to be filed publicly and could not include the confidential information Defendant sought to protect. Supporting papers had to be filed separately and could be sealed or redacted only as necessary to protect the information at issue. The proposed sealed document had to be filed under seal in the electronic filing system at the same time and electronically linked to the motion. The public docket description could not include the confidential information.
Deadlines and disposition
Judge Sarah Netburn allowed Defendant to file a letter motion complying with the order by February 19, 2020. Plaintiff could respond by February 24, 2020. The court stated that it would then determine whether the motion could properly be filed under seal. The order addressed the procedure for requesting sealed filing; it did not decide the underlying protective-order or motion-to-quash request.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.