Kemp v. Noeth
- Ronnie Abrams
- 1:20-cv-09121
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
In Kemp v. Noeth, Judge Netburn granted a motion to keep state records sealed to protect a sexual-assault victim’s privacy.
The state-court records and transcripts filed in Kemp’s federal petition remain sealed, protecting the privacy of the sexual-assault victim whose identifying information appears in them; Kemp’s habeas petition itself was not decided by this order.
What happened
In Kemp v. Noeth, Gary Kemp challenged his New York conviction through a petition asking for federal review. The records and transcripts filed in that case contained the name and identifying information of the sexual-assault victim.
The respondent asked the court to seal those records and transcripts. The court recognized that court documents are generally open to the public but said the victim’s privacy interest justified limiting access; it also found that redacting the name throughout the records was impractical.
Judge Netburn granted the motion to seal, so the state records and transcripts will remain sealed. The order did not decide Kemp’s petition, and it set May 17, 2021, as the deadline for Kemp’s reply, including any opposition to sealing.
The detailed version
- Kemp v. Noeth · No. 1:20-cv-09121
- Ronnie Abrams
- Apr. 15, 2021
Background
Gary Kemp filed a petition asking for a writ of habeas corpus, meaning federal court review of his state conviction. The petition challenged Kemp’s judgment of conviction and raised four grounds for relief. The respondent filed the state-court records and transcripts relating to that conviction.
Those records contained the name and other identifying information of Kemp’s sexual-assault victim. The respondent moved to seal the records and transcripts. The order states that the victim’s name appeared more than 1,500 times across the materials. It also notes that New York Civil Rights Law § 50-b protects the confidentiality of a sex-offense victim’s identity.
Sealing analysis
The court explained that judicial documents generally carry a presumption of public access. It treated the state records and transcripts as judicial documents because they were relevant to the court’s work and useful to the judicial process.
The court nevertheless concluded that the victim’s privacy interest was an important reason to restrict public access. It further determined that sealing the documents, rather than redacting the necessary portions, was appropriate because redaction would be impractical and redaction software could fail. The court found sealing narrowly tailored to protect the privacy interests at issue.
Ruling and next steps
Judge Sarah Netburn granted the respondent’s motion to seal at ECF No. 15. The state-court records and transcripts are to remain under seal. The order did not rule on the merits of Kemp’s habeas petition. Because the respondent had filed a response to the amended petition, Kemp was directed to file any reply by May 17, 2021; he could state in that reply whether he opposed sealing. The Clerk was directed to mail the order to Kemp, whom the order identifies as proceeding without a lawyer.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.