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 granted defendants’ request to seal limited exhibit portions protecting confidential city information.
The defendants’ ability to keep limited portions of five exhibits from public view was affected. The City of New York’s confidential information was the stated basis for the redactions, and redacted copies were ordered filed publicly.
What happened
In Gjenashaj v. City of New York, the defendants asked to keep portions of five exhibits from the public docket. The exhibits were submitted in connection with the plaintiff’s response to a filing about undisputed facts and additional facts.
The court reviewed the proposed redactions and found them narrowly tailored, limited, and justified to protect the City of New York’s confidential information. It granted the defendants’ motion to file the specified portions under seal and directed the defendant to file redacted copies publicly.
Senior District Judge William H. Pauley, whose signature identifies him as William H. Pauley III, issued the order on October 23, 2020. The opinion did not decide the parties’ underlying claims.
The detailed version
- Gjenashaj v. City of New York · No. 1:19-cv-04142
- Colleen McMahon
- Oct. 23, 2020
Background
The defendants moved to file portions of Exhibits F, I, J, N, and O under seal. The exhibits were attached to Edward Stone’s declaration supporting the plaintiff’s counterstatement to Defendant Lieutenant Harrison’s statement of facts under Rule 56.1 and statement of additional facts. The opinion identifies the relevant filings as ECF Nos. 98-6, 98-9, 98-10, 98-14, and 98-15.
Court’s Analysis
The court reviewed the proposed redactions. It found that they were narrowly tailored, limited in scope, and justified to protect the City of New York’s confidential information. The court cited Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga, 435 F.3d 110, 120 (2d Cir. 2006).
Disposition
The defendants’ motion to file the specified portions under seal was granted. The court directed the defendant to file redacted copies on the public docket. The order addressed the handling of the exhibits and did not decide the underlying claims.
Judge-Name Note
The opinion’s body identifies the judge as “WILLIAM H. PAULEY II,” while the signature block identifies him as “WILLIAM H. PAULEY III.” The metadata uses the signed name. The supplied case metadata lists Colleen McMahon, which conflicts with the opinion text.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.