Vega-Ruiz v. Montefiore Medical Center
- Stewart Aaron
- 1:17-cv-01804
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In Vega-Ruiz v. Montefiore Medical Center, Magistrate Judge Aaron denied without prejudice a request to seal trial exhibits and related brief passages.
The ruling directly affected the plaintiff’s request to keep her unredacted brief and Exhibits 3 through 6 from public access. It required the plaintiff’s counsel either to submit a supported sealing motion or to withdraw the request and file unredacted materials.
What happened
In Lizzette Vega-Ruiz v. Montefiore Medical Center, the plaintiff asked to file an unredacted brief and Exhibits 3 through 6 under seal. She said the exhibits and related brief passages were covered by a protective order.
The court found that counsel had not explained why the exhibits should remain sealed after being entered into the trial record, particularly because exhibits shown unsealed at trial are generally part of the public record. The court denied the request without prejudice.
Magistrate Judge Stewart D. Aaron ordered counsel to file a new motion to seal by March 24, 2020, identifying the protective-order provisions and citing authority supporting continued secrecy. Alternatively, the plaintiff could withdraw the sealing request and file unredacted papers and exhibits by that date.
The detailed version
- Vega-Ruiz v. Montefiore Medical Center · No. 1:17-cv-01804
- Stewart Aaron
- Mar. 17, 2020
Background
The plaintiff asked to file under seal an unredacted version of her brief and Exhibits 3 through 6 connected to her motion for judgment as a matter of law or, alternatively, a new trial. She stated that the exhibits and related portions of the brief fell within a protective order previously entered with the approval of a magistrate judge. The plaintiff also filed redacted versions of the brief and documents from which the material claimed to require confidential treatment had been removed or concealed.
Court’s Analysis
The order referred to the strong presumption that judicial documents are available for public inspection under the First Amendment and common law. It stated that counsel had not given the court a reason why the exhibits should be sealed after being entered into the record at trial, especially where documents shown as unsealed trial exhibits are part of the judicial record subject to public inspection. The order required any renewed sealing request to identify the relevant protective-order provisions and explain, with supporting legal authority, why the materials should remain sealed.
Disposition
The court denied without prejudice the request to file the unredacted brief and Exhibits 3 through 6 under seal. The court ordered counsel to file a motion to seal by March 24, 2020, with the required explanation and citations. Alternatively, if the plaintiff wished to withdraw the sealing request, she was ordered to file unredacted copies of her papers and exhibits by March 24, 2020. Magistrate Judge Stewart D. Aaron did not decide the underlying motion for judgment as a matter of law or motion for a new trial in this order.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.