Monahan v. City of New York
- P. Castel
- 1:20-cv-02610
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 6
In Monahan v. City of New York, Judge Castel granted plaintiffs’ sealing motion in part and denied it in part, protecting some exhibits but requiring public filing of others.
The plaintiffs, the City of New York, members of the public whose information appeared in the exhibits, and anyone seeking access to the summary-judgment filings.
What happened
In Monahan v. City of New York, the plaintiffs asked to seal exhibits supporting their motion for summary judgment. The request was unopposed, but the court had to balance privacy interests against the public’s right to inspect court filings.
The court allowed Exhibits 162, 163, 164, 169, and 170 to remain sealed because they contained the plaintiffs’ arrest records and could cause unfair embarrassment or misuse if released without restriction. It required redactions to personal information in Exhibit 20 and to recipient information and one paragraph in Exhibit 76. It rejected sealing Exhibit 160, a document titled “Legal Guidelines for the Republican National Convention,” because no sufficient harm from disclosure was shown.
Judge P. Castel granted the motion as to Exhibits 162, 163, 164, 169, and 170; denied it in full as to Exhibit 160; and denied it in part as to Exhibits 20 and 76. The plaintiffs were ordered to publicly file Exhibits 20, 76, and 160 as directed within seven days.
The detailed version
- Monahan v. City of New York · No. 1:20-cv-02610
- P. Castel
- Mar. 30, 2022
Background
The plaintiffs filed an unopposed motion to seal exhibits attached to the Declaration of Wylie Stecklow in support of their motion for summary judgment. The exhibits concerned, among other things, complaints and communications about Occupy Wall Street arrests, arrest records involving plaintiffs Monahan, McKenna, and Varona-Borges, and guidance for NYPD members concerning conduct at protests.
Legal standard
The court applied a three-step test: whether the material is a judicial document, how strong the presumption of public access is, and whether interests favoring secrecy outweigh that presumption. Materials submitted for consideration on summary judgment are judicial documents and generally receive a strong presumption of public access. Sealing or redaction must be narrowly tailored and supported by specific reasons, although privacy interests—especially those of innocent third parties—may justify restricting access.
Rulings on the exhibits
- Exhibit 20: The exhibit was an email from a member of the public to the City about police activity during Occupy Wall Street. The court found that the sender’s name, home and work addresses, email address, employer, and the email addresses of City employees warranted redaction. It found no sufficient privacy interest in the email’s body, subject line, or method of transmission. The motion was therefore denied as to those portions, and the exhibit could be filed with the specified personal information redacted. - Exhibit 76: This email chain relayed concerns about Occupy Wall Street arrests and police access to items such as cameras and bullhorns. The court allowed redaction of recipient names and email addresses and, as a precaution, of the paragraph beginning “Also, please go over . . .” and ending “Any questions, please call us.” It found no sufficient countervailing interest in the remaining discussion. The motion was denied as to that remaining material. - Exhibits 162, 163, 164, 169, and 170: These exhibits contained arrest records and related paperwork concerning Monahan, McKenna, and Varona-Borges. The court concluded that the plaintiffs’ privacy interests outweighed public access in this specific instance, citing the risk of misuse or unfair embarrassment. The motion was granted as to these exhibits. - Exhibit 160: This document, titled “Legal Guidelines for the Republican National Convention,” had been designated confidential in a protective order in parallel litigation. The court held that the confidentiality designation alone did not justify sealing and found no apparent disclosure-related harm that outweighed public access. The motion was denied in full as to this exhibit.
Disposition
Judge P. Castel ordered that the motion to seal was granted as to Exhibits 162, 163, 164, 169, and 170; denied in full as to Exhibit 160; and denied in part as to Exhibits 20 and 76. The plaintiffs were directed to publicly file Exhibits 20, 76, and 160 in accordance with the order within seven days. The Clerk was directed to terminate the motion.
Read the full 6-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.