S.B. v. New York City Department of Education
- Lorna Schofield
- 1:21-cv-09139
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
S.B. v. New York City Department of Education: Judge Schofield granted the parties’ request to keep the student’s administrative record sealed.
The order protects the privacy of A.W., the minor student, and limits public access to the administrative record; it also affects S.B., the New York City Department of Education, and the parties’ counsel.
What happened
In S.B. v. New York City Department of Education, the parties jointly asked to file under seal an administrative record from a dispute under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. They said the record contained the minor student’s identifying, medical, disability, and educational information.
The court granted the application. The order said the entry at Docket No. 31 would remain sealed and directed the Clerk of Court to close the motion at Docket No. 40.
Judge Lorna G. Schofield entered the order on April 20, 2022. The order addressed confidentiality and public access, not the underlying education dispute.
The detailed version
- S.B. v. New York City Department of Education · No. 1:21-cv-09139
- Lorna Schofield
- Apr. 20, 2022
Background
S.B., individually and on behalf of her child, A.W., brought an action against the New York City Department of Education under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. The parties jointly requested permission to file the certified administrative record under seal. The request stated that the record included A.W.’s name, date of birth, other identifying information, medical history, disabilities, educational records, and educational progress and history.
The parties relied on confidentiality protections under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act and the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act. They also argued that the administrative proceeding was presumptively closed to the public and that protecting the minor student’s privacy outweighed the public interest in access to the record.
Ruling
The court granted the application. It ordered that the entry at Docket No. 31 remain under seal and directed the Clerk of Court to close the motion at Docket No. 40. The order did not decide the underlying challenge to the administrative decision or any other merits issue in the education dispute.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.