Noel v. City Of New York
- Laura Swain
- 1:15-cv-05236
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Noel v. City of New York, Judge Swain denied redaction of a summary-judgment document and ordered plaintiffs to file it publicly without redactions.
The plaintiffs and the City of New York; the ruling required the plaintiffs to file the document without redactions.
What happened
In Noel v. City of New York, the plaintiffs asked to file a redacted document supporting their motion for partial summary judgment. The City of New York argued that redactions were necessary.
The court explained that documents submitted for a summary-judgment motion carry a strong presumption of public access. The City did not provide evidence that the document contained protected attorney work product, and the document was already publicly available. The court also found that an earlier sealing order did not apply because the City did not show that the document was included in the privilege log covered by that order.
Judge Laura Taylor Swain ruled that the City had not shown that redaction was necessary to protect a higher value or that any redaction would be narrowly tailored. She denied the plaintiffs’ request to redact portions of the document and ordered them to file it without redactions.
The detailed version
- Noel v. City Of New York · No. 1:15-cv-05236
- Laura Swain
- Nov. 23, 2020
Background
The plaintiffs moved to file a redacted document in support of their motion for partial summary judgment. Because the City of New York insisted that the document had to be redacted, the court placed the burden on the City to justify the proposed redactions. The court reviewed the City’s supporting letter and the plaintiffs’ reply.
Public Access Standard
The court stated that the public has a general right to inspect and copy judicial records. Documents submitted for consideration on a summary-judgment motion are judicial documents and receive a strong presumption of public access under both the common law and the First Amendment. The First Amendment right of access may be overcome only by specific findings showing that closing access is essential to preserve higher values and that the restriction is narrowly tailored to serve that interest.
Work-Product Argument
The City argued that the document contained information protected by work-product privilege, which generally protects certain materials prepared for litigation. The court found that the City had not provided evidence showing that the document was protected by that privilege. The court also noted that the document was publicly available. Voluntary disclosure waives work-product protection, and the City did not argue that the disclosure had been inadvertent. The court further noted that the City had previously conceded that the document’s presence in the public domain made confidentiality protections inapplicable unless the disclosure was inadvertent.
Earlier Sealing Order
The City also argued that Magistrate Judge Parker had previously ordered the document sealed, first temporarily and later through an order resolving a challenge to the City’s privilege log. The court found that the City had not represented that the document was included in that privilege log. Accordingly, the court did not interpret Magistrate Judge Parker’s August 15, 2019 order as applying to this document.
Ruling
The court concluded that the City had not shown that the strong presumption of public access was outweighed by competing interests or that redaction was essential to preserve higher values and narrowly tailored to that purpose. The court denied the plaintiffs’ request to redact portions of the document and ordered the plaintiffs to file the document without redactions. The order resolved Docket Entry No. 919.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.