Cole- Hatchard v. Hoehmann
- Vincent Briccetti
- 7:16-cv-05900
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Cole-Hatchard v. Hoehmann, Judge Briccetti denied without prejudice a motion to seal an attachment because it gave no reason for sealing.
The ruling affected plaintiff Stephen Cole-Hatchard’s request to keep attachment #8 under seal; it did not decide the underlying claims against the defendants.
What happened
In Cole-Hatchard v. Hoehmann, Stephen Cole-Hatchard asked the court to seal attachment #8 to a filing in docket number 208. His letter-motion did not explain why the attachment should be sealed.
The court said the documents were judicial documents, which generally carry a legal presumption that the public may access them. The court found that Cole-Hatchard had not shown a sufficient basis for sealing the attachment.
The court denied the motion to seal without prejudice to refiling under Judge Vincent L. Briccetti’s Individual Rules. The clerk was directed to terminate the letter-motion.
The detailed version
- Cole- Hatchard v. Hoehmann · No. 7:16-cv-05900
- Vincent Briccetti
- May 25, 2021
Background
By a letter-motion dated May 25, 2021, plaintiff Stephen Cole-Hatchard asked the court to seal attachment #8 to a filing in docket number 208. The request was docketed as document number 209.
Reasoning
Judge Briccetti’s Individual Practices require a motion or letter-motion seeking approval to file materials under seal or with redactions to explain why sealing is requested. The court found that Cole-Hatchard’s letter-motion gave no reason for sealing attachment #8.
The court also stated that the relevant documents were judicial documents subject to a common-law and First Amendment presumption favoring public access. It concluded that Cole-Hatchard had not shown a sufficient basis to justify filing the attachment under seal.
Disposition
The court denied the motion to seal without prejudice to refiling it in accordance with Judge Briccetti’s Individual Rules. The clerk was directed to terminate the letter-motion.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.