Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled May 20, 2021

Dass v. The City University of New York

Judge
Vernon Broderick
Docket
1:18-cv-11325
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
1
Civil ProcedureDiscovery
In one sentence

In Dass v. The City University of New York, Judge Wang denied without prejudice a motion to seal three exhibits.

Who this affects

Krishna Dass, who sought to seal three exhibits to a motion to compel.

What happened

In Dass v. The City University of New York, Krishna Dass asked to file three exhibits to a motion to compel under seal.

The court found that the request did not follow court rules. It did not discuss required appeals-court decisions, file the proposed sealed documents correctly, or explain why sealing was proper instead of redacting the exhibits.

Judge Ona T. Wang denied the motion to seal without prejudice, allowing Dass to submit a new request.

The detailed version

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

Case
Dass v. The City University of New York · No. 1:18-cv-11325
Judge
Vernon Broderick
Date
May 20, 2021

Background

On May 14, 2021, Krishna Dass filed a letter motion asking to file under seal three exhibits to Dass's motion to compel. The order does not describe the underlying dispute or the contents of the exhibits.

Court's Reasoning

The court found that the motion did not comply with the court's Individual Practices. The motion did not address the Court of Appeals' opinions in Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga and Bernstein v. Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossman LLP. It also did not contemporaneously file the proposed sealed documents under seal in the electronic filing system and electronically relate them to the motion. In addition, the motion did not explain why sealing was appropriate instead of redacting each exhibit.

Ruling

Judge Ona T. Wang denied without prejudice Dass's motion to seal. The order did not resolve the motion to compel or the underlying claims.

The authoritative version

Read the full 1-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.