East Village New Deli Corp. v. United States Of America
- Paul Engelmayer
- 1:20-cv-07356
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In East Village New Deli Corp. v. United States, Judge Engelmayer granted the Government leave to file a redacted SNAP record.
East Village New Deli Corp., the United States and Thomas J. Vilsack, and third parties whose private information appeared in the administrative record, including electronic benefits transfer card recipients and SNAP-participating stores.
What happened
East Village New Deli Corp. is seeking review of a government decision permanently disqualifying it from participating in the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP). The Government asked to file a redacted administrative record.
The Government said the record contained private information about electronic benefits transfer card recipients and SNAP-participating stores, including identification and household numbers. It argued that privacy laws and the privacy interests of third parties justified redaction. The plaintiff consented to the request.
Judge Engelmayer granted the Government’s request and ordered that the redacted administrative record could be filed on the public docket.
The detailed version
- East Village New Deli Corp. v. United States Of America · No. 1:20-cv-07356
- Paul Engelmayer
- May 20, 2021
Background
East Village New Deli Corp. brought an action seeking review of a final agency decision permanently disqualifying the plaintiff from participating in the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP). The United States and Thomas J. Vilsack were identified as defendants.
The Government asked the court for permission to file a redacted version of the certified administrative record on the public docket. The record contained information about electronic benefits transfer card recipients and stores participating in SNAP, including Food and Nutrition Service numbers, electronic benefits transfer card numbers, household numbers, and other confidential or personal information.
Arguments and Ruling
The Government relied on privacy protections in the Privacy Act, the Food and Nutrition Act of 2008, and related federal regulations. It argued that redaction was appropriate despite the general presumption that court filings are publicly accessible because the privacy interests of third parties outweighed the value of public access to the redacted information. The Government also noted that courts in similar SNAP disqualification cases had allowed the Government to submit redacted administrative records. The plaintiff consented to the request.
Judge Paul A. Engelmayer granted the request. The order allowed the Government to file a redacted version of the certified administrative record on the public docket. The opinion does not decide the merits of the plaintiff’s challenge to the SNAP disqualification.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.