Duka v. Alliance Tri-State Construction, Inc
- James Cott
- 1:20-cv-06648
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Duka v. Alliance Tri-State Construction, Judge Ramos denied sealing Docs. 33 and 34 but directed filing three other documents under seal pending review.
The defendants, the non-parties whose privacy interests were asserted, the plaintiff, and members of the public seeking access to the court filings.
What happened
In Duka v. Alliance Tri-State Construction, Inc., the defendants asked to seal or redact documents containing information they said implicated non-parties’ privacy interests. The plaintiff consented to the request.
The court denied sealing Documents 33 and 34. It directed the defendants to file three other documents under seal with their reply and said it would later decide whether those documents should remain sealed or become public.
Judge Edgardo Ramos also directed the Clerk of Court to terminate Document 37. The order did not make a final decision about keeping the three other documents sealed.
The detailed version
- Duka v. Alliance Tri-State Construction, Inc · No. 1:20-cv-06648
- James Cott
- Mar. 4, 2021
Background
Counsel for the defendants asked the court to permit sealing or redaction of five documents. The request concerned the plaintiff’s declaration supporting opposition to the defendants’ motion for terminating sanctions, the declaration of Liman Vrlaku supporting that opposition, and three declarations that the defendants intended to file with their reply: declarations from Razi Imerovski, Merima Duka, and Arjgent Duka. The letter said the requested protection was based on personal privacy interests of non-parties, particularly Liman Vrlaku. It also said the plaintiff consented.
The defendants acknowledged the general presumption that the public should have access to court filings. They argued that privacy interests justified sealing or redaction here, and they asked to file their reply after the court decided the letter request.
Ruling
The court denied the request to seal Documents 33 and 34. The defendants were directed to file the other three documents under seal when filing their reply. The court stated that it would then decide whether those documents should remain sealed or be viewable by the public. The Clerk of Court was directed to terminate Document 37.
Judge Edgardo Ramos signed the order on March 4, 2021. The text does not identify which specific documents correspond to Documents 33 and 34, and it does not make a final ruling on whether the other three documents will remain sealed.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.