Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Jan. 3, 2022

Robinson v. De Niro

Judge
Lewis Liman
Docket
1:19-cv-09156
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
2
Civil ProcedureDiscovery
In one sentence

In Robinson v. De Niro, Judge Liman granted permission to redact personal email and credit-card information from court documents.

Who this affects

Graham Chase Robinson and Canal Productions, Inc., whose personal email address and credit-card information were at issue in the requested redactions.

What happened

In Robinson v. De Niro, the defendants asked to redact Graham Chase Robinson’s personal email address and certain Canal Productions, Inc. credit-card numbers from receipts filed as an exhibit to their motion to compel.

The defendants argued that these limited redactions would protect private information without preventing the public from understanding the documents or the issues in the case. Robinson agreed to the email-address redaction; the filing does not state that she agreed to redact the credit-card numbers.

The court granted the application, allowing the requested redactions. The supplied case information identifies Judge Lewis Liman as the judge.

The detailed version

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

Case
Robinson v. De Niro · No. 1:19-cv-09156
Judge
Lewis Liman
Date
Jan. 3, 2022

Background

The defendants filed a letter seeking permission to redact information from Exhibit D to their motion to compel. The exhibit consisted of receipts for food purchases that contained Graham Chase Robinson’s personal email address and certain references to Canal Productions, Inc.’s credit-card numbers.

Positions of the Parties

The defendants sought narrow redactions of Robinson’s personal email address and Canal’s credit-card numbers. They argued that the public could understand the documents and the issues without seeing that information, and that disclosure could expose Robinson or Canal to unwanted intrusions. Robinson consented to redacting her personal email address. The filing does not state that she consented to redacting Canal’s credit-card numbers.

Ruling

The court granted the application. The ruling permitted the requested limited redactions from the documents filed with the motion to compel. The supplied case information identifies Judge Lewis Liman as the judge, but the filing itself is addressed to Magistrate Judge Katharine H. Parker and bears her name in connection with the grant.

Classification

This is a procedural order concerning access to and redaction of court records; it does not decide the underlying dispute or the motion to compel.

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.