Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Sept. 30, 2021

The New York Times Company v. Department of Health and Human Services

Judge
Gabriel Gorenstein
Docket
1:20-cv-03063
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
2
Civil ProcedureDiscovery
In one sentence

In The New York Times Company v. Department of Health and Human Services, Judge Gorenstein vacated a stay and ordered production of the redacted Report.

Who this affects

The New York Times Company and the Department of Health and Human Services were directly affected: the stay was vacated, and the Department was ordered to produce the Report with permitted redactions.

What happened

The New York Times Company sought a Report from the Department of Health and Human Services. An earlier order required the Department to produce it by January 27, 2021, but the court later paused that requirement while the Department appealed.

The Second Circuit affirmed the earlier decision on the merits. Because that ruling made it much less likely that the Department would succeed on appeal, the court vacated the stay. It ordered production of the Report, with the previously allowed redactions, by October 5, 2021.

Judge Gabriel W. Gorenstein issued the order. He stated that the order’s effect would be paused if the Department filed a letter showing that it had asked the Second Circuit for another stay.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
The New York Times Company v. Department of Health and Human Services · No. 1:20-cv-03063
Judge
Gabriel Gorenstein
Date
Sept. 30, 2021

Background

In an earlier opinion and order, the court directed the Department of Health and Human Services to produce a Report sought by The New York Times Company within 14 days, by January 27, 2021. The Department requested a stay pending appeal, meaning a temporary pause while the appeal was considered. The court granted that request subject to conditions.

Court’s Analysis

The opinion states that a Second Circuit panel had affirmed the court’s earlier decision on the merits. The court then reconsidered the factors supporting the stay. One factor was whether the Department had made a strong showing that it was likely to succeed on the merits. The court concluded that this factor now overwhelmingly favored denying a stay because of the Second Circuit’s decision.

Ruling

The court vacated the stay pending appeal. It ordered that the Report, with the redactions previously permitted, be produced to The New York Times Company by October 5, 2021. The court also stated that the order would be stayed if the Department filed a letter on the court’s electronic filing system indicating that it had filed a motion for a stay pending appeal with the Second Circuit.

The authoritative version

Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.