Seaman v. National Collegiate Student Loan Trust 2007-2
- Paul Gardephe
- 1:18-cv-01781
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Seaman v. National Collegiate Student Loan Trust 2007-2, Judge Moses granted defendants’ request to seal accidentally unredacted college-record exhibits.
The parties in both related cases, whose exhibits were ordered sealed, and members of the public who could previously access those exhibits on the electronic docket. The parties were also required to explain why they should not be sanctioned.
What happened
In Seaman v. National Collegiate Student Loan Trust 2007-2, and a related case, defendants asked to seal college-record exhibits that had been filed without redactions in opposition to plaintiffs’ class-certification request. The parties agreed to the request.
The court granted the motion because the redactions were required or permitted under federal court rules and precedent. The redacted versions removed plaintiffs’ phone numbers, addresses, email addresses, full birth dates, and most financial-account numbers. The court ordered the listed exhibits in both cases sealed from public access.
The court also ordered the parties to explain by June 1, 2022, why they should not be sanctioned for filing the exhibits unredacted and failing to correct the error for more than nine months, and what steps they would take to prevent similar mistakes. The order was signed by United States Magistrate Judge Barbara Moses.
The detailed version
- Seaman v. National Collegiate Student Loan Trust 2007-2 · No. 1:18-cv-01781
- Paul Gardephe
- May 25, 2022
Background
The opinion concerns two related cases: Seaman v. National Collegiate Student Loan Trust 2007-2, No. 18-CV-1781, and Bifulco v. National Collegiate Student Loan Trust 2004-2, No. 18-CV-7692. Defendants, with plaintiffs’ consent, asked the court to seal exhibits containing plaintiffs’ college records. The exhibits had been filed without redactions on August 12, 2021, in opposition to plaintiffs’ motion asking the court to certify a class.
The requested redactions removed plaintiffs’ home phone numbers, addresses, email addresses, and full dates of birth, leaving only birth years visible. They also removed most financial-account numbers, leaving only the last four digits visible. Defendants said the exhibits should have been filed with redactions under the Southern District of New York’s electronic-filing rules but were inadvertently filed unredacted. Redacted copies were filed on May 24, 2022.
Ruling
The court granted the sealing motion. It concluded that the redactions were either required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 5.2 or permitted under Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga and related precedent. The court ordered the specified exhibits in both cases to be placed under seal at the “Applicable Party” viewing level, restricting access to the court and the parties.
The court noted that the unredacted exhibits had been publicly available on the electronic docket for more than nine months. It also noted that the parties had filed and refiled other sealing orders during that period but had not included the documents at issue. The court further stated that the exhibits remained publicly accessible under two docket entries in each case, even after defendants reported the issue to the electronic-filing help desk.
Show-Cause Order
The court ordered the parties to show cause in writing by June 1, 2022, why they should not be sanctioned for filing the exhibits unredacted and failing to correct the error for more than nine months. The parties were also ordered to explain what they would do to prevent similar errors in the future. United States Magistrate Judge Barbara Moses signed the order.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.