Capak v. Epps
- Katharine Parker
- 1:18-cv-04325
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Capak v. Epps, Judge Abrams denied redaction and sealing of summary-judgment filings, ordering Richard J. Capak to file unredacted versions.
Richard J. Capak was required to file unredacted versions of the three documents, and the ruling concerned public access to those court filings.
What happened
In Capak v. Epps, Richard J. Capak filed his opposition to Tauheed Epps’s summary-judgment motion and related documents in redacted form without first asking permission to seal them. He later asked to keep the redactions because the documents were marked confidential or referred to confidential materials.
The court denied the request. It explained that documents submitted for consideration on summary judgment are generally public court records and that a confidentiality designation or discovery order does not by itself justify sealing them.
Judge Ronnie Abrams ordered Capak to file unredacted versions of the three documents by February 17, 2020.
The detailed version
- Capak v. Epps · No. 1:18-cv-04325
- Katharine Parker
- Feb. 14, 2020
Background
Richard J. Capak filed three documents in redacted form: his opposition to Tauheed Epps’s motion for summary judgment, the supporting declaration of Chad B. Russell, and Capak’s response to Epps’s statement of material facts. Capak filed the documents without first requesting permission to file them under seal. After the court directed a response, Capak asked to file the documents in redacted form, stating that they were marked “Confidential” or cited other documents marked “Confidential.”
Court’s reasoning
The court applied the standard from Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga. It explained that materials submitted for a court’s consideration on a summary-judgment motion are judicial documents, meaning court records to which a strong presumption of public access applies under both common law and the First Amendment. The court acknowledged that Capak appeared to be trying to follow a confidentiality order signed by Judge Katharine Parker, but stated that a party’s confidentiality designation does not by itself overcome the presumption of public access. The court also noted that sealing can be appropriate for some confidential information, but found that Capak had not shown why sealing was justified under the applicable standard.
Ruling
Judge Ronnie Abrams denied Capak’s request to seal or file the three documents in redacted form. The court ordered Capak to file unredacted versions of his opposition to Epps’s summary-judgment motion, the declaration of Chad B. Russell, and his response to Epps’s statement of material facts on the docket no later than February 17, 2020.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.