Doe 1 v. The College Board
- Lorna Schofield
- 1:19-cv-06660
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Doe 1 v. The College Board, Judge Schofield's supplied text is a request for redactions, not a court ruling.
The College Board and the minor students discussed in the proposed affidavit; the request also concerns the public's access to court filings.
What happened
Doe 1 v. The College Board concerns the College Board's request to redact parts of an affidavit filed in the case.
The College Board says the proposed redactions protect minor students' privacy and confidential information about how it detects and handles SAT misconduct. It also argues that disclosure could cause commercial harm or allow people to evade those procedures.
The supplied text does not show that Judge Schofield granted or denied the request. It appears to be a letter from the College Board's lawyer asking the court to approve the proposed redactions.
The detailed version
- Doe 1 v. The College Board · No. 1:19-cv-06660
- Lorna Schofield
- Feb. 18, 2020
Nature of the document
The supplied text appears to be a letter submitted by counsel for The College Board, rather than a judicial opinion or order. The letter asks the court to approve proposed redactions to an affidavit of Camille Thompson, identified as an exhibit filed in connection with the court's February 10, 2020 order.
Arguments for redaction
The College Board argues that the redactions are narrowly tailored and overcome the common-law presumption that judicial documents should be publicly accessible. It identifies two main interests: protecting the privacy of minor students involved in alleged test misconduct and protecting confidential information about the College Board's methods and procedures for detecting and handling misconduct on the SAT.
The letter characterizes the misconduct-detection methods as confidential business information and a trade secret. It argues that disclosure could harm the College Board's commercial interests, create a competitive disadvantage, and make the procedures more vulnerable to circumvention. The letter cites cases in which courts allowed sealing or redaction to protect confidential business information, enforcement policies, investigation information, and information that could be exploited by competitors.
Disposition
The supplied text does not state that Judge Schofield entered an order granting or denying the request. It contains the College Board's request that the court approve the proposed redactions, so no ruling on that request can be identified from the provided text.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.