Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Feb. 28, 2022

Belle v. City Of New York

Judge
Valerie Caproni
Docket
1:19-cv-02673
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
2
Civil Procedure
In one sentence

In Belle v. City of New York, Judge Caproni granted an application to file a sensitive exhibit under seal.

Who this affects

The plaintiffs, including Edison Quito, and anyone seeking access to the sensitive exhibit; the order also directed the Clerk of Court to close docket entry 150.

What happened

Belle v. City of New York involved the plaintiffs’ request to seal an exhibit attached to their reply papers on a motion to amend. The exhibit was Edison Quito’s Domain Awareness System “Snapshot Report.”

The plaintiffs said IBM had labeled the report “HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL” and that it contained Quito’s photograph, personal information, and sensitive informational fields. They also noted the presumption that court records should generally be accessible, and said these facts supported sealing the exhibit. The defendants consented to the request.

Judge Valerie E. Caproni granted the application and directed the Clerk of Court to close the open motion at docket entry 150. The order does not provide additional reasoning or specify the duration or scope of the sealing.

The detailed version

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

Case
Belle v. City Of New York · No. 1:19-cv-02673
Judge
Valerie Caproni
Date
Feb. 28, 2022

Background

The plaintiffs asked the court to file an exhibit to their reply papers on a motion to amend under seal. The exhibit was Edison Quito’s Domain Awareness System “Snapshot Report,” which IBM had produced and labeled “HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL.” According to the plaintiffs, the report included Quito’s photograph, personal information, and sensitive informational fields. The defendants consented to the request.

Court’s Action

The court granted the application. It directed the Clerk of Court to close the open motion at docket entry 150. The order does not state additional reasons, identify a sealing period, or describe any further restrictions on access.

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.