Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Feb. 16, 2021

Murtha v. New York State Gaming Commission

Judge
Philip Halpern
Docket
7:17-cv-10040
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
2
Civil ProcedureEvidence
In one sentence

In Murtha v. New York State Gaming Commission, Judge Halpern granted an application to seal limited medical-record information in a filing.

Who this affects

The order affects James Murtha and defendants Brian Barry, Dr. Stephanie Wolf, and Thom Kotarski by allowing selected medical-record information to be filed under seal.

What happened

Murtha v. New York State Gaming Commission concerns defendants’ request to keep certain information about James Murtha’s medical records from public view. The information appeared in selected parts of the defendants’ statement of undisputed facts supporting an anticipated request for judgment without a trial.

The defendants proposed limited redactions in paragraphs 78–81 and 100–104. The records had been obtained through a release signed by Murtha or came from New York State Gaming Commission records concerning his workers’ compensation case. Murtha confirmed that he wanted this information filed under seal.

Judge Philip M. Halpern granted the application. The court directed the Clerk to terminate ECF No. 61, the docket entry identified in the order. The order addressed filing medical information and did not state a ruling on the underlying claims.

The detailed version

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

Case
Murtha v. New York State Gaming Commission · No. 7:17-cv-10040
Judge
Philip Halpern
Date
Feb. 16, 2021

Background

Defendants Brian Barry, in both his individual and official capacities, Dr. Stephanie Wolf, individually, and Thom Kotarski, individually, asked the court for permission to file information about Plaintiff James Murtha’s medical records under seal. The request concerned portions of the defendants’ statement of undisputed material facts filed with a pre-motion conference letter for an anticipated motion for summary judgment, which is a request for judgment without a trial when the parties’ material facts are not genuinely disputed.

The request stated that the medical records had either been received through a health-record release signed by Murtha during discovery or had been produced by defendants from New York State Gaming Commission records concerning Murtha’s workers’ compensation case. The defendants had made limited redactions in paragraphs 78–81 and 100–104, which quoted or summarized statements from the medical records. Defense counsel conferred with Murtha’s counsel, and Murtha confirmed that he wanted the information filed under seal.

Court’s Action

The court granted the application. The request was narrowly limited to selected portions of the document, and the defendants also filed an unredacted version under seal identifying the redacted passages. The order directed the Clerk to terminate ECF No. 61. The opinion addressed the handling of medical-record information and did not state a ruling on the merits of the underlying dispute.

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.