Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Mar. 11, 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 ProcedureDiscovery
In one sentence

Conklin v. ICE: Judge Swain granted limited sealing of medical-record exhibits and restricted public access to the filing.

Who this affects

Patrick Conklin and members of the public seeking access to the specified exhibits and declaration filed in the case.

What happened

In Conklin v. U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Patrick Conklin asked the court to seal exhibits containing his medical information after they were filed publicly with his opposition to the defendants’ summary-judgment motion. The request concerned medical records about diagnosis and treatment.

The court allowed Conklin to file under seal Exhibits 8, 9, 18, 19, 47, 48, 49, and 52 of the declaration filed on March 7, 2022. This list differs from the exhibits identified in his request, which included Exhibits 50 and 54 instead of Exhibits 48 and 52.

Judge Laura Taylor Swain also directed the clerk to restrict access to the declaration and attachments and ordered Conklin to file a public version without the sealed exhibits. The court’s order stated that the application was granted to that extent.

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
Mar. 11, 2022

Background

Patrick Conklin’s lawyer told the court that Conklin had filed an opposition to the defendants’ motion for summary judgment on March 7, 2022. The opposition included a declaration by Marshall B. Bellovin with several attached exhibits. The lawyer said some exhibits were copies of Conklin’s medical records containing information about diagnosis and treatment and should have been filed under seal.

The request identified Exhibits 8, 9, 18, 19, 47, 49, 50, and 54 as medical records. It relied on the privacy interests associated with medical records and cited decisions discussing the presumption that court filings are publicly accessible.

Ruling

The court granted the application to the extent that Conklin could file under seal Exhibits 8, 9, 18, 19, 47, 48, 49, and 52 of Bellovin’s declaration filed on March 7, 2022. The order did not explain the difference between this list and the exhibits identified in the request.

The court reminded Conklin that the court’s electronic filing rules provide directions for filing motions to seal. It directed him to file a copy of the declaration without the sealed exhibits on the public docket. It also directed the clerk to restrict access to docket entry 72, including its attachments, to the selected-party-only viewing level. The docket states that docket entry 73 resolved the matter.

Effect

The order limited public access to the specified exhibits and required a publicly accessible version of the declaration that omitted them. It did not decide the defendants’ summary-judgment motion.

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.