Mckenzie v. City Of New York
- Valerie Caproni
- 1:18-cv-06913
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Mckenzie v. City Of New York, Magistrate Judge Gorenstein removed confidential pages from the public docket after plaintiff filed them without sealing permission.
Plaintiff Cecil Mckenzie was affected because pages 13 through 30 of his opposition were removed from the public docket and restricted to attorney access. Defendants were affected because the court declined to consider those materials in preparing its report and recommendation. The public could no longer access the removed pages through the public docket.
What happened
In Cecil Mckenzie v. City Of New York, defendants asked the court to remove pages 13 through 30 of Mckenzie's summary-judgment opposition because they contained materials marked confidential under a protective order.
The protective order required a party to ask the court for permission before filing confidential materials in a public court record. Mckenzie had not sought that permission, and the opinion says the pages apparently contained protected materials.
The court ordered the pages removed from the public docket and placed on a docket available only to attorneys. It also said the materials were irrelevant to the summary-judgment motion and would not be considered in preparing the court's report and recommendation. Magistrate Judge Gorenstein issued the order.
The detailed version
- Mckenzie v. City Of New York · No. 1:18-cv-06913
- Valerie Caproni
- Feb. 26, 2021
Background
Defendants had moved for summary judgment. In their reply, they argued that Mckenzie violated the case's protective order by submitting confidential records with his opposition papers. They asked the court to strike pages 13 through 30 from the public docket.
The case was subject to the Southern District of New York's plan for certain cases brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The plan automatically applies a uniform protective order. Under that order, a party receiving protected materials must ask the court for permission before filing papers that disclose those materials under seal and must state whether another party objects.
Ruling
The court found that pages 13 through 30 of Mckenzie's opposition papers apparently contained materials designated confidential under the protective order. Because Mckenzie had not requested or received permission to file them under seal, the court ordered that the pages be removed from the public docket and filed under a new docket entry available only to attorneys.
The court noted that Mckenzie could still make the application required by the protective order. It also stated that the materials were irrelevant to the summary-judgment motion because they either were hearsay, including an unsworn investigation report, or concerned the defendant officers' conduct in unrelated matters. The court said it would not consider those materials when preparing its report and recommendation, while construing Mckenzie's contentions in the light most favorable to him.
Magistrate Judge Gabriel W. Gorenstein issued the order. The opinion does not decide the defendants' summary-judgment motion.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.