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 motion to seal materials while reserving a later decision.
The parties in Boyce v. Weber, including Plaintiff and Defendants, and members of the public seeking access to the specified court materials.
What happened
In Boyce v. Weber, the parties jointly asked the court to seal or redact portions of Plaintiff’s responses to Defendants’ summary-judgment and expert-witness motions, along with supporting materials.
The requested materials included expert deposition transcripts, sexually explicit or nude photographs, correspondence about alleged sexual encounters, and medical or testing information. Defendants deferred to Plaintiff’s request for the filing but said they might later challenge the scope of sealing.
Judge Furman temporarily granted the motion to seal. The court said it would decide whether to keep the materials sealed or redacted when resolving the underlying motion, and directed the clerk to terminate the filing identified as ECF No. 90.
The detailed version
- Boyce v. Weber · No. 1:19-cv-03825
- Jesse Furman
- Mar. 12, 2020
Background
Counsel for the parties jointly asked the court to allow portions of Plaintiff’s responses to Defendants’ motion for summary judgment and motion concerning expert testimony, along with supporting documents, to be filed under seal or with redactions. The request followed an earlier temporary sealing order covering sexually explicit photographs of Plaintiff, correspondence concerning alleged sexual encounters involving Plaintiff and third parties, Plaintiff’s expert report, and the transcript of that expert’s deposition.
Plaintiff additionally sought sealing or redaction of the deposition transcript of Defendants’ expert, Dr. Mills, and nude photographs of third parties. Plaintiff asserted that Dr. Mills’s deposition included highly confidential raw testing data and sensitive medical information concerning Plaintiff and his family. Plaintiff also asserted that the photographs raised significant privacy concerns. Defendants deferred to Plaintiff’s position for the filing, while reserving the possibility of revisiting the scope of sealing later.
Ruling
Judge Furman temporarily granted the motion to seal. The court reserved a final decision on whether the materials should remain sealed or redacted until it decided the underlying motion. The clerk was directed to terminate ECF No. 90. The order did not finally determine the materials’ continued sealing or redaction.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.