Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled May 10, 2022

L. v. New York City Department of Education

Judge
Lorna Schofield
Docket
1:21-cv-11215
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
3
Civil Procedure
In one sentence

In N.L. v. New York City Department of Education, Judge Schofield granted the parties’ request to seal the administrative record.

Who this affects

The administrative record in the case was sealed, and access was limited to Benjamin Kopp and Darian Alexander, the attorneys listed in the appendix.

What happened

N.L., individually and on behalf of M.C., and the New York City Department of Education jointly asked the court to seal the administrative record in N.L. v. New York City Department of Education.

The record contains hearing transcripts, exhibits, medical records, educational records, and information about M.C.’s disability and educational needs. The parties said the record included more than 50 records and 792 pages, making redaction burdensome and potentially insufficient to protect M.C.’s privacy.

Judge Lorna G. Schofield granted the sealing application for substantially the reasons stated in the parties’ letter. The materials at Docket No. 19 were sealed, with access limited to the people listed in the appendix, and the clerk was directed to close the motion at Docket No. 18.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
L. v. New York City Department of Education · No. 1:21-cv-11215
Judge
Lorna Schofield
Date
May 10, 2022

Background

The parties jointly requested permission to file the administrative record under seal. The record concerns the underlying administrative proceeding and contains hearing transcripts, exhibits, and medical and educational records involving M.C., a minor student. The parties stated that these materials include identifying information and sensitive information about M.C.’s disabling condition and educational needs.

The parties also stated that the record contains more than 50 individual records totaling 792 pages. They argued that redacting protected information would be burdensome and might not adequately protect M.C.’s privacy because information remaining after redaction could still allow someone in the school community to identify the student.

Ruling

Judge Schofield granted the sealing application for substantially the reasons stated in the parties’ joint letter. The court ordered that the materials at Docket No. 19 be sealed, with access limited to the individuals listed in the appendix: Benjamin Kopp, the attorney for the plaintiff, and Darian Alexander, the attorney for the defendant. The clerk was directed to close the motion at Docket No. 18.

The authoritative version

Read the full 3-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.