Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Feb. 12, 2021

Boyce v. Weber

Judge
Jesse Furman
Docket
1:19-cv-03825
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
2
Civil ProcedureEvidence
In one sentence

In Boyce v. Weber, Judge Furman temporarily granted a motion to seal materials concerning testimony in a witness’s prior sexual-harassment lawsuit.

Who this affects

The order affects the plaintiff’s filings, the defendants’ request for confidentiality, and materials concerning witness Sam Shahid’s prior testimony.

What happened

In Boyce v. Weber, the plaintiff asked to file portions of an opposition brief and supporting documents under seal or with redactions. The materials concerned testimony by witness Sam Shahid from an earlier sexual-harassment lawsuit.

The defendants requested sealing because the testimony included references to an alleged sexual assault involving Shahid. The plaintiff took no position on sealing at that time and reserved the right to seek unsealing later.

Judge Furman temporarily granted the motion to seal. He stated that the Court would decide whether to keep the materials sealed or redacted when ruling on the underlying motion, and directed the Clerk to terminate ECF No. 161.

The detailed version

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

Case
Boyce v. Weber · No. 1:19-cv-03825
Judge
Jesse Furman
Date
Feb. 12, 2021

Background

The plaintiff sought permission to file portions of his opposition to the defendants’ pretrial motions and related supporting documents under seal or with redactions. The materials included portions of witness Sam Shahid’s deposition testimony from a previous sexual-harassment lawsuit. The plaintiff had cited that testimony in responding to the defendants’ motion seeking to prevent use of the lawsuit against Shahid at trial.

The defendants asked that references to the testimony and to an alleged sexual assault involving Shahid be sealed or redacted. According to the language included in the parties’ letter-motion, the defendants characterized those references as sensitive, subject to privacy concerns, inadmissible at trial, decades old, and unrelated to the plaintiff’s allegations. The plaintiff stated that he did not take a position on whether the materials should be sealed at that time and reserved the right to seek unsealing later.

Ruling

The Court temporarily granted the motion to seal. It stated that it would assess whether the materials should remain sealed or redacted when deciding the underlying motion. The Clerk was directed to terminate ECF No. 161.

Effect of the Order

The order addressed only the temporary sealing of the identified materials. The opinion does not decide whether the materials will ultimately remain sealed or redacted, whether Shahid’s testimony will be admitted at trial, or the merits of the underlying motion.

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.