Gjenashaj v. City of New York
- Colleen McMahon
- 1:19-cv-04142
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In Gjenashaj v. City of New York, Judge Pauley temporarily kept exhibits sealed and ordered proposed redactions before deciding whether to unseal them.
The parties were required to resubmit the five exhibits with proposed redactions, and the exhibits remained temporarily sealed while the court reviewed them. The order specifically reminded the defendants of their burden concerning the law-enforcement privilege.
What happened
In Gjenashaj v. City of New York, the parties asked the court to seal five exhibits attached to a declaration supporting the plaintiff’s response to a defense summary-judgment filing. The order does not describe the exhibits’ contents.
The court directed the parties to submit the exhibits again with the defendants’ proposed redactions by October 19, 2020. Until the court reviews those proposed redactions, the exhibits will remain temporarily sealed.
Senior United States District Judge William H. Pauley III issued the order on October 14, 2020. He reminded the defendants that the party claiming the law-enforcement privilege must prove that the privilege applies to the documents.
The detailed version
- Gjenashaj v. City of New York · No. 1:19-cv-04142
- Colleen McMahon
- Oct. 14, 2020
Background
The parties moved to seal Exhibits F, I, J, N, and O, identified as ECF Nos. 98-6, 98-9, 98-10, 98-14, and 98-15. The exhibits were attached to Edward Stone’s declaration supporting the plaintiff’s counterstatement to Lieutenant Harrison’s Rule 56.1 statement and statement of additional facts. Rule 56.1 governs factual statements submitted in connection with summary-judgment motions.
Order
After a telephonic oral argument on October 9, 2020, the court directed the parties to resubmit the exhibits with the defendants’ proposed redactions by October 19, 2020. The exhibits were to remain temporarily sealed while the court reviewed the proposed redactions.
The court also stated that the party asserting the law-enforcement privilege bears the burden of showing that the privilege applies to the documents. The order did not make a final ruling on whether the exhibits would remain sealed or be unsealed.
Disposition
The court ordered the parties to resubmit the exhibits with proposed redactions and kept them temporarily sealed pending review. Senior United States District Judge William H. Pauley III signed the order.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.