Edelman v. NYU Langone Health System
- Lewis Liman
- 1:21-cv-00502
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Edelman v. NYU Langone Health System, Judge Schofield denied defendants’ request to preemptively seal records and directed compliance with the court’s sealing procedure.
The ruling affects Edelman, the defendants, and the parties’ handling of patient, employee, compensation, and business records in this case; it also concerns privacy interests of nonparty patients and employees whose information may appear in those records.
What happened
Edelman v. NYU Langone Health System concerns defendants’ request to keep certain records confidential before they were filed in support of or opposition to a planned summary-judgment motion. The records included patient information, employee records, compensation information, and NYU business plans and performance measures. Plaintiff’s counsel consented to the request subject to preserving plaintiff’s rights under a confidentiality agreement.
The submission discussed the public’s right to access court records and argued that medical privacy, personal identifying information, employee compensation, and sensitive business information could justify redaction or sealing. It also referred to a prior confidentiality order governing discovery materials.
Judge Lorna G. Schofield denied defendants’ request for a preemptive sealing order. The court directed the parties to follow the sealing process in its individual rules instead.
The detailed version
- Edelman v. NYU Langone Health System · No. 1:21-cv-00502
- Lewis Liman
- Feb. 7, 2022
Background
Defendants responded to plaintiff’s request to seal materials filed in the case. They asked the court to authorize in advance the designation of certain records as confidential and their filing in redacted form or under seal in connection with defendants’ forthcoming motion for summary judgment. The records included patient records and complaints, information about plaintiff’s clinical practices, employee records, physician and director compensation, salary information, and NYU business plans and performance measures called wRVU targets.
The submission stated that the materials had been produced in discovery and designated confidential under a stipulated confidentiality order. Plaintiff’s counsel consented to defendants’ request while reserving plaintiff’s rights under that order.
Legal framework discussed
The submission discussed the common-law and First Amendment rights of public access to judicial documents. It described a three-step framework: determining whether the material is a judicial document, determining the weight of the presumption of public access, and determining whether countervailing interests or higher values outweigh that presumption. The submission stated that medical privacy, personal identifying information, employee compensation, and sensitive business information can justify narrowly tailored redactions or sealing in appropriate circumstances.
Ruling
The court denied defendants’ request to preemptively order that the records be filed under seal. It directed the parties to comply with the process set out in Individual Rule 1.D. The order therefore did not grant advance permission to seal the categories of records identified in defendants’ submission.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.