Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Nov. 25, 2020

Fulton v. Superintendent

Judge
George Daniels
Docket
1:20-cv-00021
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
2
Civil ProcedureHabeas
In one sentence

Fulton v. Superintendent: Judge Cave granted in part and denied in part the motion to seal court filings.

Who this affects

The respondent must publicly file a redacted memorandum rather than seal the entire memorandum, may file the unredacted memorandum under seal, and may file the state-court record under seal. Jeremy Fulton was to receive a copy of the order.

What happened

In Fulton v. Superintendent, the respondent asked to seal the state-court record and a legal memorandum in the case.

The court allowed the state-court record to be filed under seal but rejected sealing the entire memorandum because that request was too broad and conflicted with public access to court documents.

Judge Sarah L. Cave allowed a redacted memorandum and an unredacted sealed version, and directed the Clerk to close the sealing motion and mail the order to Jeremy Fulton.

The detailed version

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

Case
Fulton v. Superintendent · No. 1:20-cv-00021
Judge
George Daniels
Date
Nov. 25, 2020

Background

The respondent filed a letter-motion asking to seal the state-court record and the respondent's entire memorandum of law. The stated reason for sealing was protecting the privacy rights of victims.

Ruling

The court granted in part and denied in part the respondent's motion to seal. It granted the request to file the state-court record under seal. It denied the request to seal the entire memorandum, including its discussion and legal analysis, because doing so was not narrowly tailored to protect the victims' privacy and was inconsistent with the presumption that judicial documents should be publicly accessible.

The court granted the respondent leave to file a memorandum with information that could implicate the victims' privacy and security rights redacted, along with an unredacted memorandum under seal. It also directed redaction of information covered by the Southern District of New York's electronic filing rules, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 5.2(a), and the court's individual rules. The Clerk was directed to close the sealing motion and mail a copy of the order to Jeremy Fulton.

The authoritative version

Read the full 2-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.