A.S. v. The Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations of America, Inc.
- John Cronan
- 1:19-cv-11566
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In A.S. v. Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations, Judge Cronan directed a sealing request for settlement materials and an infant compromise order.
The plaintiff, the defendants, and the infant plaintiff whose privacy and settlement-related materials were at issue.
What happened
In A.S. v. The Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations of America, Inc., the plaintiff’s lawyer asked to file settlement-approval materials and a proposed order involving an infant plaintiff under seal.
The request cited the confidentiality of settlement discussions and agreements, as well as the infant plaintiff’s privacy. The filing also referred to the court’s prior order and its rules for sealing documents.
Judge Cronan ordered that the sealing request be submitted when the proposed infant compromise order and supporting documents are filed, following the court’s applicable procedures. The text does not clearly state that the documents themselves were sealed or that the settlement was approved.
The detailed version
- A.S. v. The Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations of America, Inc. · No. 1:19-cv-11566
- John Cronan
- May 26, 2022
Background
The plaintiff’s counsel asked to file under seal materials supporting the court’s approval of a settlement and a proposed infant compromise order. An infant compromise order is a court order addressing a settlement involving a minor. The filing states that the parties had conferred about filing the materials under seal.
Arguments for sealing
The request asserted that public access should yield to interests in preserving the confidentiality of settlement negotiations and resulting agreements, and in protecting the infant plaintiff’s privacy. It cited an earlier Southern District of New York decision concerning confidentiality and sealing.
Court’s action
The court’s order states that the sealing request should be submitted when the proposed infant compromise order and supporting documents are filed, and that the submission must follow section 4.B of the court’s Individual Rules and Practices in Civil Cases. The text does not expressly state that the sealing request was granted, that the documents were sealed, or that the settlement was approved. The order is an ancillary filing and sealing ruling rather than a decision on the underlying claims.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.