Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Sept. 29, 2020

Boyce v. Weber

Judge
Jesse Furman
Docket
1:19-cv-03825
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
1
Civil ProcedureDiscovery
In one sentence

In Boyce v. Weber, Judge Furman denied sealing for specified materials but otherwise granted the request.

Who this affects

The parties must publicly file the specified portions of their briefs and cited deposition transcript, except for redactions of third-party names; other requested sealing or redactions were granted.

What happened

In Boyce v. Weber, Jason Boyce asked the court to keep certain materials under seal or redacted.

The court denied the request for proposed redactions in the parties’ briefs, except for redactions containing third-party names. It also denied sealing for pages or portions of Dr. Ho’s deposition transcript cited in the briefs, except for third-party names.

Judge Furman otherwise granted the request and ordered the parties to file or refile any documents needed to comply within one week.

The detailed version

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

Case
Boyce v. Weber · No. 1:19-cv-03825
Judge
Jesse Furman
Date
Sept. 29, 2020

Background

The plaintiff requested permission to keep certain materials under seal or redacted. The order addressed proposed redactions in the parties’ briefs and pages or portions of Dr. Ho’s deposition transcript that the briefs cited.

Ruling

The court denied the request as to the proposed redactions in the parties’ briefs, except where they included the names of third parties. It also denied the request as to any cited pages or portions of Dr. Ho’s deposition transcript, except where they included third-party names. The court otherwise granted the request. The parties were ordered to file or refile any documents needed to comply with the order within one week.

Effect

The specified portions of the briefs and cited deposition transcript were not allowed to remain sealed or redacted, except for third-party names. Other requested sealing or redactions were granted. The order did not decide the underlying claims between the parties.

The authoritative version

Read the full 1-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.