Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled June 24, 2020

Dov v. Bureau of Prisons

Judge
Sarah Cave
Docket
1:20-cv-04343
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
2
Civil ProcedureHabeas
In one sentence

In Dov v. Bureau of Prisons, Judge Cave granted the government’s request to seal Dov’s medical records.

Who this affects

The petitioner’s medical records are affected by the sealing order; the government’s motion was granted, with the petitioner’s counsel’s consent.

What happened

In Dov v. Bureau of Prisons, the government asked to file the petitioner’s Bureau of Prisons medical records under seal.

The government argued that sealing was appropriate because medical records are private, despite the general presumption that court filings are publicly accessible. The petitioner’s counsel consented to the request.

Judge Sarah L. Cave granted the respondent’s letter-motion and directed the Clerk of Court to close the motion listed as ECF No. 15.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
Dov v. Bureau of Prisons · No. 1:20-cv-04343
Judge
Sarah Cave
Date
June 24, 2020

Background

The government, through the United States Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York, asked permission to file the petitioner’s medical records from the Bureau of Prisons under seal. The request was made in the petitioner’s habeas matter. The petitioner’s counsel consented.

Arguments

The government acknowledged the general presumption that court filings should be accessible to the public. It argued that sealing was appropriate because of the privacy interests associated with medical records and cited cases permitting courts to seal such records.

Ruling

Judge Sarah L. Cave granted the respondent’s letter-motion to file the petitioner’s medical records under seal. The court directed the Clerk of Court to close ECF No. 15. The opinion text addresses the sealing request and does not state a ruling on the underlying habeas petition.

The authoritative version

Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.