S.F. v. New York City Department Of Education
- Lewis Liman
- 1:20-cv-02121
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 9
In S.F. v. New York City Department of Education, Judge Liman granted redaction and public-refiling requests concerning two exhibits.
The plaintiffs, whose complaint and exhibits must be publicly refiled in redacted form, and members of the public who access the court filings.
What happened
S.F. et al v. New York City Department Of Education involves a filing whose two exhibits mistakenly included identifying information about a plaintiff. The plaintiffs’ lawyer asked that those materials be temporarily sealed and replaced with redacted versions.
The court granted the application to file redacted versions of the two exhibits. It directed the plaintiffs to refile the complaint publicly with the two exhibits attached in redacted form.
Judge Lewis J. Liman entered this order on March 23, 2020. The text does not decide the parties’ underlying dispute about special-education services or whether the student received an appropriate education.
The detailed version
- S.F. v. New York City Department Of Education · No. 1:20-cv-02121
- Lewis Liman
- Mar. 23, 2020
Background
The case was filed on March 10, 2020. A letter submitted by the plaintiffs’ lawyer stated that two exhibits attached to the complaint mistakenly contained identifying information about a plaintiff. The letter requested temporary sealing of those filings so they would be inaccessible to users of the federal court’s electronic records system. It also attached redacted versions of the exhibits and stated that the defendant’s counsel consented to the proposed procedure.
The underlying materials describe claims involving the federal law governing special education, disability-discrimination laws, and New York education law. They allege that the New York City Department of Education failed to provide the student with an appropriate public education and seek various forms of relief. Those allegations were not resolved by this order.
Ruling
The court granted the application to file redacted versions of the two exhibits referenced in the motion. The plaintiffs were directed to refile the complaint in public view, with the two exhibits attached in redacted form.
What the Order Decides
This is a filing-access and privacy ruling. It does not decide whether the Department of Education violated federal or state education law, whether the student was entitled to reimbursement or compensatory education, or whether any other requested relief should be awarded.
Read the full 9-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.