Maragh v. The Roosevelt Island Operating Corporation
- Jesse Furman
- 1:16-cv-07530
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Maragh v. Roosevelt Island Operating Corporation, Judge Furman ordered a transcript filed under seal first and reserved whether to use it in deciding summary judgment.
The order directly affects Othniel Maragh and the defendants by setting procedures for submitting and reviewing the transcript. It also addresses privacy interests of Roosevelt Island Operating Corporation employees who were not parties to the case.
What happened
Maragh v. The Roosevelt Island Operating Corporation concerns a transcript of an audio recording connected to an investigation involving the plaintiff. The defendants said they had not received the transcript and questioned its accuracy and authenticity.
The defendants asked the court to let them review and respond to the transcript and to keep the audio recording and transcript confidential and under seal. They cited privacy concerns involving nonparty employees whose statements appeared in the investigation materials.
Judge Furman ordered the plaintiff to mail the transcript to the defendants and the court by May 17, 2021, so the court could file it under seal. Judge Furman reserved whether, and how much, to consider the audio recording or transcript in deciding the pending summary-judgment motion.
The detailed version
- Maragh v. The Roosevelt Island Operating Corporation · No. 1:16-cv-07530
- Jesse Furman
- May 12, 2021
Background
The order concerns a transcript of an audio recording connected to the Roosevelt Island Operating Corporation’s Public Safety Department investigation into complaints about the plaintiff’s behavior at the workplace. The defendants said the plaintiff had given them the audio recording during discovery but had not provided the transcript. The defendants also said the plaintiff had described the transcript as inaccurate and wanted more time to edit or correct it.
The Defendants’ Requests
The defendants asked for an opportunity to review the transcript and respond to any accuracy or authenticity concerns. They also asked that the audio recording and transcript be filed under seal and treated as confidential under an existing confidentiality and protective order. They relied in part on privacy concerns involving employees who were not parties to the case and whose statements appeared in the investigation materials.
Court’s Order
The court ordered the plaintiff to mail any transcript of the audio recording that he had submitted to chambers to both the defendants and chambers no later than May 17, 2021. Upon receiving it, the court would file the transcript under seal. The court warned that the plaintiff could not submit anything else directly to chambers without first obtaining permission through a written request to the Pro Se Intake Unit.
The court allowed either party to file a short letter brief within three days after the transcript was filed if the party believed the transcript should remain sealed or be redacted for additional reasons. The court stated that it would decide whether to keep the materials sealed or redacted when resolving the underlying motion. It also reserved judgment on whether, and to what extent, to consider the audio recording or transcript in deciding the pending motion for summary judgment. If considered, the transcript would serve only as an aid in interpreting the audio recording, not as independent evidence. The Clerk of Court was directed to terminate ECF No. 204 and mail the order to the plaintiff.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.