Accely v. Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc.
- Analisa Torres
- 1:19-cv-05984-DC-SLC
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Accely v. Consolidated Edison, Judge Torres denied defendants’ request to seal 55 summary-judgment exhibits because privacy interests did not outweigh public access.
The defendants’ request to seal 55 exhibits was denied, preserving public access to the documents; the parties may file redacted copies under Rule 5.2(a).
What happened
In Accely v. Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc., the defendants asked to seal 55 documents attached to the parties’ summary-judgment filings. The documents included Welby Accely’s performance evaluations, deposition transcripts, and grievance forms.
The court said judicial documents generally carry a strong presumption of public access. It found that the defendants had not shown that the identified privacy interests outweighed the public’s interest in disclosure, and noted that the materials had already been filed publicly.
Judge Analisa Torres denied the defendants’ request to file the 55 documents under seal. The parties may file redacted versions as allowed by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 5.2(a).
The detailed version
- Accely v. Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc. · No. 1:19-cv-05984-DC-SLC
- Analisa Torres
- May 7, 2021
Background
By letters dated April 22 and April 28, 2021, the defendants asked to file 55 documents under seal as exhibits to the parties’ summary-judgment briefing. The requested materials included Welby Accely’s performance evaluations, full deposition transcripts covering various topics, and grievance forms.
Court’s Analysis
The court explained that judicial documents generally carry a strong common-law presumption of public access and should not remain sealed without compelling reasons. The defendants had not demonstrated that the privacy interest they identified outweighed the public’s interest in disclosure. The court also considered significant that the materials had already been filed publicly.
Ruling
The court denied the defendants’ request to file 55 documents under seal. The parties may file redacted copies of the documents as permitted by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 5.2(a).
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.