Alexander v. New York City Department of Education
- Jesse Furman
- 1:19-cv-07023
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Alexander v. New York City Department of Education, Judge Aaron granted sealing, unsealed a response, and denied another motion as moot.
The order affected Brendamarie Alexander, the defendants, the public availability of filings containing medical information, and any possible continuation of Alexander’s deposition.
What happened
In Alexander v. New York City Department of Education, the defendants asked to keep unredacted copies of Brendamarie Alexander’s medical records from public view. The court also addressed a separate motion concerning whether Alexander’s deposition would continue.
The court granted the defendants’ motion to seal the filing containing the unredacted medical records. A redacted version remains publicly available, and the court ordered Alexander’s response unsealed because she did not ask to keep it sealed. The court denied the defendants’ other letter motion as moot and directed the parties to discuss whether the deposition should continue.
Judge Stewart D. Aaron issued the order on March 18, 2022, after a telephone conference and for reasons stated on the record. The Clerk was directed to unseal the response and terminate the identified motion.
The detailed version
- Alexander v. New York City Department of Education · No. 1:19-cv-07023
- Jesse Furman
- Mar. 18, 2022
Background
After a telephone conference with the parties, the court addressed two defense filings. One was a motion to seal a letter motion that included unredacted copies of Brendamarie Alexander’s medical records. A redacted version of that letter motion had been filed publicly. The other was a separate defense letter motion related to a possible continuation of Alexander’s deposition.
Rulings
The court granted the defendants’ motion to seal. The filing containing the unredacted medical records was to remain under seal, while the redacted version remained on the public docket. The court stated that Alexander did not seek to seal her response to the defendants’ letter motion and therefore ordered that response unsealed.
The court denied the defendants’ other letter motion as moot. It directed the parties to meet and confer about any continuation of Alexander’s deposition. The Clerk of Court was requested to unseal the response filed at ECF No. 58 and terminate the motion identified at ECF No. 64.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.