S. S. v. New York City Department of Education
- Vernon Broderick
- 1:20-cv-09394
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In S. S. v. New York City Department of Education, Judge Broderick ordered an explanation for sealing an administrative record.
The plaintiff and the New York City Department of Education, whose proposed sealed filing was subject to the court’s requirement for an explanation.
What happened
S. S. v. New York City Department of Education concerns the plaintiff’s request, with the defendant’s consent, to file under seal the record that had been before the Office of State Review. The request involved three exhibits and was made partly because of the record’s volume and electronic filing size limits.
The court’s order stated that sealing or redacting a filing must be narrowly tailored and consistent with the public’s presumptive access to court documents. The court also stated that the parties’ consent or a confidentiality agreement alone is not enough to overcome that presumption.
Judge Broderick directed the parties to provide an explanation for seeking sealing by March 7, 2022. The opinion text does not state that the request to seal was granted or denied.
The detailed version
- S. S. v. New York City Department of Education · No. 1:20-cv-09394
- Vernon Broderick
- Mar. 2, 2022
Background
Counsel for the plaintiff requested permission to file under seal the record that was before the Office of State Review. The request was made with the defendant’s consent. Counsel stated that the record was too large for the applicable electronic filing size limits and proposed filing it as three sealed exhibits.
Court’s Direction
The court directed the parties to provide an explanation by March 7, 2022, for why the documents should be filed under seal. It stated that any redaction or sealing must be narrowly tailored to serve the interest supporting it and must be consistent with the presumption that judicial documents are publicly accessible. The court further stated that the parties’ consent, or the fact that information is covered by a confidentiality agreement, is not by itself a sufficient basis for sealing.
Disposition
The order directed the parties to submit the required explanation. The opinion text does not state that the request to file the record under seal was granted or denied.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.