Crawford v. US Security Associates
- Paul Gardephe
- 1:19-cv-00105
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Crawford v. US Security Associates, Judge Gardephe denied an application concerning public access to case information and closed the case.
Crawford’s request was denied; the ruling also addressed public access to court records and the court’s inability to order the nonparty entity controlling Leagle.com to remove information.
What happened
In Crawford v. US Security Associates, Crawford filed an application seeking relief concerning information about the case, including information available through Leagle.com.
The court explained that court records carry a strong presumption of public access, based partly on the public’s First Amendment right to know about the administration of justice. It also said that the entity controlling Leagle.com was not a party to the lawsuit, so the court generally could not order that nonparty to remove information from its website.
The court denied the application and directed the Clerk of Court to terminate the motion and close the case. Judge Paul Gardephe issued the order.
The detailed version
- Crawford v. US Security Associates · No. 1:19-cv-00105
- Paul Gardephe
- July 29, 2020
Background
Crawford submitted a court application seeking relief concerning information connected with the case. The filing is difficult to read, but the court’s response indicates that the requested relief included removing information from Leagle.com or otherwise restricting public access to case information.
Court’s Analysis
The court denied the application. It relied on the strong presumption that judicial records are open to the public. The court cited decisions recognizing the public’s First Amendment right to know about the administration of justice and the press and public’s qualified First Amendment right of access to docket sheets.
The court also explained that the entity controlling Leagle.com was not a party to the lawsuit. As a result, the court said it would be inappropriate to direct that entity to remove information from its website. The court cited the general rule that a court may not issue an order against a nonparty and generally may not grant injunctive relief against nonparties.
Disposition
The application was denied. The Clerk of Court was directed to terminate the motion and close the case. The order states that a copy was mailed by chambers.
Uncertainty
The docket number and several portions of the filing are not legible in the supplied text. The date used above is the provided filing date; the text does not separately identify the date of the endorsed order.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.