Robinson v. De Niro
- Lewis Liman
- 1:19-cv-09156
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Robinson v. De Niro, Judge Parker granted Robinson’s request to redact her personal email address from court-filed records.
Graham Chase Robinson, whose personal email address may be redacted from the specified exhibit; the defendants, who consented to the request; and members of the public seeking access to the court filing.
What happened
In Robinson v. De Niro and Canal Productions, Inc., Graham Chase Robinson asked to hide her personal email address in time records filed as an exhibit in connection with Canal’s request to add counterclaims. The records were emails Robinson sent to herself during her employment, and the defendants agreed to the request.
The request concerned only the email address, not the rest of the records. The filing argued that the redaction would protect Robinson from harassment and unwanted public contact while still allowing the public to understand the case and the court’s proceedings.
Judge Katharine H. Parker granted the application on June 8, 2021. The ruling allowed the requested limited redaction.
The detailed version
- Robinson v. De Niro · No. 1:19-cv-09156
- Lewis Liman
- June 8, 2021
Request
Graham Chase Robinson asked the court for permission to make limited redactions to Exhibit B of her declaration. The exhibit contained contemporaneous time records that Robinson had emailed to herself during her employment with the defendants. The requested redactions covered only Robinson’s personal email address. The defendants consented.
Reasoning Presented
The filing relied on the public’s general right to access judicial records and the court’s authority to restrict access when privacy concerns or other countervailing interests justify doing so. It argued that the access interest was limited because the records had been exchanged in discovery and that the public would not need Robinson’s personal email address to understand the issues or evaluate the fairness of the proceedings. It also argued that public disclosure could expose Robinson to harassment and other intrusions, particularly given the substantial public and media attention to the case.
Disposition
The application was granted. The ruling permitted the requested redaction of Robinson’s personal email address.
Record discrepancy
The supplied case metadata identifies Lewis Liman as the judge, but the opinion text identifies Katharine H. Parker as the judicial officer and shows her granting the application. This summary follows the judge identified in the opinion text.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.