Everytown for Gun Safety Support Fund v. Bureau of Alcohol
Everytown for Gun Safety Support Fund v. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives
- Andrew Carter
- 1:21-cv-00376
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Everytown v. ATF, Judge Carter granted the government leave to file parts of the administrative record under seal, with redactions.
The government may file portions of the administrative record under seal, and the public docket will contain redactions. The plaintiffs retain the rights they reserved to challenge the redactions; the provided text does not state the outcome of the requested protective order.
What happened
In Everytown for Gun Safety Support Fund v. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, the government asked to file parts of a more than 700-page administrative record under seal while litigating an Administrative Procedure Act matter involving a federal firearms license.
The government said the requested redactions would protect firearms-trace information, law-enforcement-sensitive material, and personal information such as addresses, driver’s license numbers, and credit card numbers. The plaintiffs consented to the sealing request but reserved the right to challenge the redactions.
Judge Andrew L. Carter, Jr. granted the government leave to file portions of the administrative record under seal. The text provided does not show a separate ruling on the government’s requested protective order.
The detailed version
- Everytown for Gun Safety Support Fund v. Bureau of Alcohol · No. 1:21-cv-00376
- Andrew Carter
- Apr. 26, 2021
Background
The government represented the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives in an Administrative Procedure Act case concerning the issuance of a federal firearms license. It was producing an administrative record of more than 700 pages to the plaintiffs.
The government requested permission to file portions of that record under seal, with redactions in the publicly available version. It identified three categories of information for protection: firearms-trace information that Congress had prohibited from public disclosure; law-enforcement information concerning investigative and enforcement procedures; and personal information, including addresses, driver’s license numbers, and credit card numbers.
The government also requested a protective order governing the plaintiffs’ use of sensitive law-enforcement records on pages ATF 712–746. It proposed that some privileged information remain redacted from the version provided to the plaintiffs and that an unredacted version be filed under seal for the court’s review. The plaintiffs consented to the government’s requests while reserving the right to challenge the redactions and seek changes to the protective order.
Ruling
Judge Andrew L. Carter, Jr. granted the government leave to file portions of the administrative record under seal. The provided text does not state that the court granted or denied the separate request for entry of a protective order.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.