Culbreath v. Griffin
- Kenneth Karas
- 7:17-cv-03406
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Culbreath v. Griffin, Judge Karas so ordered Plaintiff’s request to file specified materials under seal and directed delivery of unredacted copies.
Plaintiff Jeffrey Culbreath, Defendants, and the court’s chambers, because the order concerns the filing and submission of confidential and unredacted materials.
What happened
In Culbreath v. Griffin, Plaintiff Jeffrey Culbreath asked to file parts of his opposition to Defendants’ summary-judgment motion, related factual statements, and certain exhibits under seal.
The request concerned materials designated as confidential or for attorneys’ eyes only under a protective order, along with materials referring to sealed trial testimony from another case. Plaintiff said the request did not admit that the designations were proper or waive his right to challenge them.
Judge Kenneth M. Karas so ordered the request and directed Plaintiff to email unredacted copies of the identified documents to chambers.
The detailed version
- Culbreath v. Griffin · No. 7:17-cv-03406
- Kenneth Karas
- Dec. 29, 2020
Background
Plaintiff Jeffrey Culbreath, through counsel, requested permission to file certain materials under seal. The materials included portions of his memorandum opposing Defendants’ motion for summary judgment, his responsive and supplemental statements of facts, and Exhibits 2–22 and 24–28 to the declaration of Kevin M. McDonough.
Basis for the Request
The requested materials had been designated, or referred to documents designated, as “Confidential” or “Attorney’s Eyes Only” under a protective order entered on September 4, 2018. Some materials also contained or referred to trial testimony sealed in a separate case. Plaintiff stated that seeking sealing did not concede that the confidentiality designations were proper or waive his right to challenge them. He also stated that complete unredacted copies had been served on Defendants’ counsel.
Ruling
The court stated “So ordered” in response to the request and directed Plaintiff to email unredacted copies of the identified documents to chambers. The opinion text does not separately use the word “granted” to describe the sealing request.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.