Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled May 14, 2021

Cohen v. Northeast Radiology, P.C.

Judge
Vincent Briccetti
Docket
7:20-cv-01202
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
2
Civil ProcedureFirst Amendment
In one sentence

In Cohen v. Northeast Radiology, Judge Briccetti denied Alliance’s request to seal documents but kept them sealed temporarily.

Who this affects

Alliance Healthcare Services, Inc. had to refile its letter-motion and attachments publicly with limited redactions. Northeast Radiology, P.C. joined the sealing request. Bryan Cohen had to respond to the underlying pre-motion-conference request and provide the requested expected date.

What happened

In Cohen v. Northeast Radiology, Alliance Healthcare Services asked to file its letter-motion and attachments under seal. Northeast Radiology joined the request, and Bryan Cohen did not object.

The court found that the documents were subject to a presumption of public access and that Alliance had not shown why sealing was necessary. The court identified only Cohen’s mailing address and birthday as potentially confidential.

Judge Briccetti ordered Alliance to refile the documents publicly by May 17, 2021, with those two items redacted. He deferred ruling on the underlying request for a pre-motion conference and required Cohen to respond by the same deadline; the documents were to remain sealed in the meantime.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
Cohen v. Northeast Radiology, P.C. · No. 7:20-cv-01202
Judge
Vincent Briccetti
Date
May 14, 2021

Background

Alliance Healthcare Services, Inc. asked to file its letter-motion and attachments for a pre-motion conference under seal. Northeast Radiology, P.C. joined the request, and Bryan Cohen did not object.

Sealing request

The court denied the request to seal. It explained that the documents were judicial documents subject to a presumption of public access under both common law and the First Amendment. Alliance had not narrowly tailored its request or shown that sealing was essential to protect more important interests. Although Alliance cited Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 5.2 and the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act as requiring confidentiality, it did not identify which parts of the documents were confidential under those authorities. The court identified only Cohen’s mailing address and birthday as potentially confidential.

Other rulings and deadlines

The court ordered Alliance to refile the letter-motion and attachments on the public docket by close of business on May 17, 2021, after redacting Cohen’s mailing address and birthday. The court deferred ruling on the merits of Alliance’s request for a pre-motion conference. It ordered Cohen to respond to that request by the same deadline and to provide a specific date by which he expected to obtain corroboration about whether he had been a patient at the defendants’ facilities. The Clerk was directed to terminate the letter-motions, while the documents and attachments were to remain under seal in the meantime.

Disposition

Judge Briccetti denied the request to seal, deferred ruling on the pre-motion-conference request, and set the stated filing and response requirements.

The authoritative version

Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.