L.G.C. v. Decker
- Katherine Failla
- 1:21-cv-08800
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In L.G.C. v. Decker, Judge Failla granted L.G.C.’s request to file three exhibits under seal.
L.G.C., the respondents, and nonparty individuals whose identifying information appeared in the proposed exhibits.
What happened
In L.G.C. v. Decker, L.G.C. asked to file three groups of exhibits under seal: redacted records about correctional officers, declarations from people detained with L.G.C., and L.G.C.’s updated disciplinary records.
L.G.C. said the first two groups contained information about people who were not parties to the case, while the disciplinary records contained L.G.C.’s identifying information. The respondents said they had not reviewed the proposed materials and questioned whether some were within the scope of the court’s earlier order, but did not object to receiving relevant updated medical records under seal.
Judge Katherine Polk Failla granted the application. She directed the clerk to file the documents at docket number 45 under seal, visible only to the court and the parties, and to terminate the pending motion at docket number 44.
The detailed version
- L.G.C. v. Decker · No. 1:21-cv-08800
- Katherine Failla
- Feb. 22, 2022
Background
L.G.C., represented by counsel, asked for permission to file three sets of exhibits under seal. The exhibits were: (1) redacted documents titled “Index and Public Records relating to Orange County Sheriff’s Correctional Officers”; (2) three redacted declarations from individuals detained with L.G.C.; and (3) L.G.C.’s updated disciplinary records from Orange County Correctional Facility.
L.G.C. explained that the first two sets concerned people who were not individually named parties in the litigation, including correctional officers, their associates, and detained individuals. L.G.C. also stated that the disciplinary records contained personally identifying information and that the court had previously allowed L.G.C. to proceed under a pseudonym and file certain documents under seal.
The Respondents’ Position
Respondents said they had not had an opportunity to review the proposed evidentiary submission. They stated that some documents appeared to exceed the materials contemplated by the court’s January 3 order. Respondents did not object to the court receiving relevant updated medical records under the existing sealing order, but asked for an opportunity to review and respond if the court allowed additional materials to be submitted.
Ruling
The court granted the application. Judge Katherine Polk Failla directed the clerk to file the documents at docket number 45 under seal, with access limited to the court and the parties. The court also directed the clerk to terminate the pending motion at docket number 44. The order addressed filing and access to documents; the opinion text does not decide the underlying dispute.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.