Boyce v. Weber
- Jesse Furman
- 1:19-cv-03825
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Boyce v. Weber, Judge Furman temporarily granted the parties’ request to seal or redact motion materials pending later review.
The parties and the motion papers and supporting materials they sought to file under seal or with redactions.
What happened
In Boyce v. Weber, the parties jointly asked the court to temporarily seal or redact materials connected to Defendants’ summary-judgment and expert-evidence motions.
The requested materials included sexually explicit photographs, correspondence about alleged sexual encounters, an expert report, and an expert’s deposition transcript. Plaintiffs said the materials raised privacy concerns or were covered by an earlier confidentiality order; Defendants temporarily deferred to Plaintiffs’ position.
Judge Furman temporarily granted the request. The court said it would decide whether to keep the materials sealed or redacted when ruling on the underlying motions, and directed the Clerk of Court to terminate ECF No. 73.
The detailed version
- Boyce v. Weber · No. 1:19-cv-03825
- Jesse Furman
- Feb. 24, 2020
Background
The parties submitted a joint letter asking the court to allow portions of Defendants’ motion for summary judgment, motion concerning the reliability or admissibility of expert evidence, and supporting materials to be filed under seal or with redactions. A filing under seal is not publicly available on the court docket; redaction hides specified information while leaving the remainder public.
Materials at Issue
Plaintiffs identified sexually explicit photographs of the Plaintiff and correspondence concerning alleged sexual encounters between the Plaintiff and third parties. Plaintiffs said these materials were highly sensitive, implicated privacy concerns, and were inadmissible at trial. The request also covered the report of Plaintiff’s expert, Dr. Judy Ho, and the transcript of Dr. Ho’s deposition. The letter referred to a January 15, 2020 order by Magistrate Judge Netburn requiring certain raw-data testing materials to be treated as highly confidential and instructing Plaintiff to seek sealing if protected material appeared in the expert’s report or opinions. Plaintiffs therefore requested that the entire report and deposition transcript be filed under seal. Defendants deferred to Plaintiffs’ position for that filing but indicated they might later challenge the scope of the sealing.
Ruling
The court temporarily granted the parties’ application. It stated that it would assess whether the materials should remain sealed or redacted when deciding the underlying motions. The Clerk of Court was directed to terminate ECF No. 73. The opinion does not make a final determination that the materials must remain sealed or redacted.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.