A.B. v. New York City Department Of Education
- Stewart Aaron
- 1:20-cv-03129
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In A.B. v. New York City Department Of Education, Judge Aaron granted plaintiffs’ motions to seal documents whose identifying information was protected by the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act.
The plaintiffs’ identifying information in documents filed with the court was kept from public disclosure through redacted filings; the ruling also preserved public access to the remaining contents of those documents.
What happened
In A.B. v. New York City Department Of Education, the plaintiffs asked the court to seal unredacted versions of an affidavit and exhibits filed in connection with their request for attorneys’ fees. Public versions had already removed the plaintiffs’ names.
The court treated the documents as court records because they were submitted for use in deciding the fee request. Although court records generally carry a strong presumption of public access, the court found that the plaintiffs sought to remove only identifying information protected by the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act.
Judge Stewart D. Aaron granted both motions to seal. The court concluded that filing redacted versions would protect the required confidentiality while preserving the public’s access to the judicial proceedings.
The detailed version
- A.B. v. New York City Department Of Education · No. 1:20-cv-03129
- Stewart Aaron
- Mar. 13, 2021
Background
The court considered two letter motions to seal filed by the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs sought to seal:
- An unredacted affidavit of A.B. and S.V., identified as the parents of G.B.; - Unredacted exhibits to the plaintiffs’ memorandum supporting their motion for attorneys’ fees; and - An unredacted exhibit to the plaintiffs’ reply memorandum supporting that fee motion.
Redacted versions of these documents had been filed publicly. In those versions, the plaintiffs removed their names.
Legal standard
The court applied the test from Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga. First, the court determines whether the documents are “judicial documents”—documents relevant to the court’s work and useful in the judicial process. If they are, a common-law presumption of public access applies. The court must then weigh that presumption against competing considerations.
Court’s analysis
The court held that the documents were judicial documents because they were submitted in connection with the plaintiffs’ motion for attorneys’ fees. They therefore received a strong presumption of public access.
The court nevertheless found that sealing was justified in the form requested. The plaintiffs sought to redact only identifying information that should not be publicly available under the confidentiality provisions of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). The court cited the IDEA’s requirement that personally identifiable data, information, and records collected or maintained by state and local educational agencies be kept confidential.
The court concluded that the public interest in access to judicial proceedings would remain protected if the documents were filed in redacted form.
Disposition
The court GRANTED the plaintiffs’ letter motions to seal filed at ECF Nos. 35 and 44. The opinion does not state that the motions were granted with or without prejudice.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.