J.R. v. New York City Department Of Education
- Ronnie Abrams
- 1:19-cv-11783
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In J.R. v. New York Department of Education, Judge Abrams granted the Department’s motion to seal two exhibits containing protected identifying information.
The ruling affects the New York Department of Education, the plaintiffs, and members of the public seeking access to the two exhibits. The exhibits remain sealed for now, and the Department must refile redacted versions to protect confidential identifying information.
What happened
J.R. and other plaintiffs sued the New York Department of Education. The Department opposed the plaintiffs’ request for summary-judgment fees and costs, but its filing included two documents with unredacted identifying information protected by education privacy rules.
The Department temporarily sealed the documents and then asked to seal them permanently while refiling redacted versions. The court treated the exhibits as judicial documents, meaning the public generally has a strong right to inspect them, but found that protecting confidential identifying information justified sealing them for now.
Judge Ronnie Abrams granted the Department’s motion to seal docket entries 35-1 and 35-4. She ordered the Department to refile them with appropriate redactions by February 4, 2021.
The detailed version
- J.R. v. New York City Department Of Education · No. 1:19-cv-11783
- Ronnie Abrams
- Jan. 27, 2021
Background
The defendant filed an opposition to the plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment on fees and costs. That opposition included two exhibits containing unredacted identifying information. The opinion states that the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act’s confidentiality provisions required that information not be publicly available.
The defendant first obtained a temporary seal for the documents and then moved to permanently seal them while refiling versions with appropriate redactions.
Court’s analysis
The court applied the test from Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga. First, it determined whether the documents were “judicial documents”—documents relevant to the court’s work and useful in the judicial process. Because the exhibits were submitted in opposition to a motion for summary judgment, the court held that they were judicial documents. That meant they were subject to a strong presumption that the public could access them.
The court nevertheless found that sealing the documents in full was appropriate for now. The defendant sought to redact only identifying information that should remain confidential under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. The court concluded that public access would remain protected if the documents were filed in redacted form, while the confidentiality of the identifying information would be preserved.
Ruling
Judge Ronnie Abrams granted the defendant’s motion to seal docket entries 35-1 and 35-4. The defendant was ordered to refile those documents with appropriate redactions no later than February 4, 2021. The opinion did not decide the plaintiffs’ underlying motion for summary judgment on fees and costs.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.