F. S. v. New York City Department Of Education
- Alison Nathan
- 1:21-cv-07539
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 14
In F. S. v. New York City Department of Education, Judge Nathan so ordered redaction and sealing of an exhibit to protect personal identifying information.
The order affected the plaintiffs’ filing of Exhibit One and the public availability of the exhibit’s unredacted version.
What happened
F. S. v. New York City Department of Education concerned the plaintiffs’ request to correct how an exhibit was filed in the federal case. The plaintiffs’ attorney said Exhibit One had been submitted with only partial redactions.
The plaintiffs asked to file a redacted version of the exhibit and to seal the unredacted version. They said those steps were necessary to keep personal identifying information out of the public court record.
Judge Alison J. Nathan entered the order stating “SO ORDERED” on September 20, 2021. The available opinion text does not state any other ruling or address the underlying education dispute.
The detailed version
- F. S. v. New York City Department Of Education · No. 1:21-cv-07539
- Alison Nathan
- Sept. 20, 2021
Background The filing concerns an exhibit submitted in the plaintiffs’ federal case against the New York City Department of Education and other defendants. The plaintiffs’ attorney told the court that Exhibit One had been incorrectly filed with only partial redactions.
The material attached to the filing includes a prior administrative education hearing decision and related records. Those materials contain personal identifying information concerning the student and family. The court’s filing does not decide the merits of the underlying education dispute.
Request On behalf of the plaintiffs, counsel requested permission to file an attached version of Exhibit One in redacted form and to seal the unredacted version. Counsel stated that the requested redaction and sealing were necessary to prevent personal identifying information from being entered into the record.
Ruling The document states “SO ORDERED” and is dated September 20, 2021, following the plaintiffs’ requests. The available text does not separately describe the court’s ruling using the words “granted” or “denied,” and it does not identify any additional relief.
Read the full 14-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.