Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Feb. 22, 2022

Conklin v. U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement

Judge
Sidney Stein
Docket
1:20-cv-08178
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
2
Civil ProcedureEvidence
In one sentence

Conklin v. U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement: Judge Swain granted Defendants’ request to seal or redact exhibits containing medical records.

Who this affects

The plaintiff’s medical records and the parties’ access to Exhibits 2, 41, 55, and 74 were affected. The exhibits remained sealed or redacted, with the sealed materials restricted to selected parties.

What happened

In Conklin v. U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Defendants asked to seal two exhibits and file redacted versions of two others in connection with their summary-judgment motion. The exhibits contained the plaintiff’s medical records and information about medical diagnoses and treatment.

Defendants argued that sealing was appropriate because of the privacy interests involved in medical records, despite the general presumption that court filings are publicly accessible. The plaintiff consented to the request.

Judge Swain granted the application. She ordered that the sealed exhibits remain restricted to selected parties, and the docket reflects that the request was resolved.

The detailed version

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

Case
Conklin v. U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement · No. 1:20-cv-08178
Judge
Sidney Stein
Date
Feb. 22, 2022

Background

Defendants U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement and Secretary of Homeland Security Alejandro Mayorkas requested permission to submit two exhibits under seal and two additional exhibits with redactions. The request concerned exhibits to be filed with Defendants’ summary-judgment motion. The letter states that the plaintiff consented to the request.

The requested restrictions covered Exhibits 2, 41, 55, and 74. According to Defendants, those exhibits contained the plaintiff’s medical records and information about the plaintiff’s diagnoses and treatment. Defendants argued that the privacy interests associated with medical records justified sealing despite the general presumption that court filings should be open to the public. The letter cited decisions discussing that presumption and the treatment of medical records as confidential.

Ruling

The court granted the application for the reasons stated in Defendants’ letter. It ordered that the sealed exhibits, listed at docket entry 61, remain under their existing viewing restriction—access limited to selected parties. The order also stated that docket entry 55 was resolved. The order was signed by Chief United States District Judge Laura Taylor Swain.

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.