Wallace v. McCarthy
- Ronnie Abrams
- 1:18-cv-06525
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Wallace v. McCarthy, Judge Abrams granted the Government’s application to redact privileged and private information from a public case record.
The Government may file a redacted MSPB record, while the plaintiff, the identified employees, and the public are affected by the permitted redactions and limited access to information.
What happened
In Wallace v. McCarthy, the Government asked to redact parts of the Merit Systems Protection Board record before filing it publicly. The proposed redactions covered attorney-client or attorney work-product communications and the names of Army employees connected to equal-employment or accommodation matters.
The Government argued that protecting privileged communications and employee privacy outweighed the public’s access to the record. The plaintiff did not object to the proposed redactions.
Judge Ronnie Abrams granted the application, found the proposed redactions appropriate, and allowed the defendant to file the redacted record with the Clerk of Court.
The detailed version
- Wallace v. McCarthy · No. 1:18-cv-06525
- Ronnie Abrams
- July 9, 2021
Background
The Government asked to file a redacted version of the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB) record in a public filing. The Government said that portions of the record contained communications protected by the attorney-client privilege or work-product protection, as well as references to Equal Employment Opportunity complaints or requests for workplace accommodation by specific U.S. Army Corps of Engineers employees. The plaintiff did not object to the proposed redactions.
Court’s reasoning
The court recognized a presumption that judicial documents should be publicly accessible. It applied the public-access analysis requiring consideration of whether the material is a judicial document, the strength of the public-access presumption, and interests that weigh against public disclosure. The court accepted the Government’s position that protecting privileged communications and the privacy of employees whose names appeared in connection with complaints or accommodation requests were countervailing interests that overcame the presumption of public access.
Ruling
The court granted the application. It found the proposed redactions appropriate and allowed the defendant to file the redacted version of the MSPB record with the Clerk of Court. The order addressed access to and redaction of the record; it did not decide the underlying employment dispute.
Disposition
Application granted. Proposed redactions permitted.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.