Jordan v. Lamanna
- Sarah Cave
- 1:18-cv-10868
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In Jordan v. Lamanna, Judge Cave granted a request to keep a bond-co-signer letter available only to the parties and closed the related motion.
The petitioner, the potential bond co-signers identified in the letter, and members of the public seeking access to the filing.
What happened
Jordan v. Lamanna involved a request concerning a letter about people who might co-sign a release bond. The request arose after a hearing on the State’s motion to stay the judgment and the petitioner’s request for release while an appeal was pending.
The petitioner asked to file the letter under seal because it identified potential co-signers by name, city of residence, and occupation. The petitioner’s lawyer said privacy interests supported restricting access, and reported that the District Attorney’s counsel did not oppose the request.
Judge Sarah L. Cave granted the request to make the letter available only to the parties. She directed the Clerk of Court to close the motion listed as Electronic Court Filing No. 46.
The detailed version
- Jordan v. Lamanna · No. 1:18-cv-10868
- Sarah Cave
- Nov. 9, 2020
Background
The petitioner’s lawyer wrote to Magistrate Judge Sarah L. Cave after a November 2, 2020, hearing concerning the State’s motion to stay the judgment and the petitioner’s cross-motion for release pending appeal. During that hearing, the court asked the petitioner to identify people willing to co-sign a release bond.
Request to Restrict Access
The petitioner asked the court to permit a letter identifying potential bond co-signers to be filed under seal. The letter contained names, cities of residence, and occupations. The request argued that these privacy interests outweighed the general public interest in accessing judicial records, particularly given the media attention described in the request. The petitioner’s lawyer also stated that counsel for the District Attorney did not oppose the request.
Ruling
The court granted the request for Electronic Court Filing No. 47 to be available only to the parties in the action. The court directed the Clerk of Court to close the motion at Electronic Court Filing No. 46. The excerpt does not identify the specific document title for either filing beyond the request concerning the bond-co-signer letter.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.