S.D. v. Genalo
- Vernon Broderick
- 1:22-cv-03063
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
S.D. v. Genalo: Judge Broderick’s supplied materials conflict with the order text, which grants a sealing application in a different case.
Unclear for S.D. v. Genalo; the order text concerns petitioner Salvador Diaz and respondents in Diaz v. Decker, whose filing at docket entry 19 was kept under seal.
What happened
The supplied case information identifies S.D. v. Genalo, but the opinion text concerns a different matter identified as Diaz v. Decker. The materials therefore do not reliably establish the ruling in S.D. v. Genalo.
In the order text, counsel asked the court to keep a respondent’s filing and exhibits under seal, with public versions redacting limited personal information, including part of a birth date and an identification number. The court granted the application and directed the clerk to retain docket entry 19 under seal.
The order text is signed by Barbara Moses, United States Magistrate Judge, not Vernon Broderick. Because of this mismatch, the ruling cannot safely be attributed to S.D. v. Genalo or Judge Broderick.
The detailed version
- S.D. v. Genalo · No. 1:22-cv-03063
- Vernon Broderick
- May 26, 2022
Materials mismatch
The supplied case name and judge do not match the opinion text. The text identifies the matter as Diaz v. Decker, No. 22-cv-3063, and the order is signed by Barbara Moses, United States Magistrate Judge. The supplied materials do not provide enough consistent information to determine the ruling in S.D. v. Genalo.
Order described in the text
Counsel for the petitioner asked the court to allow the respondents’ return and accompanying exhibits to remain under seal. The public versions reportedly redacted only limited personal identifying information, including the petitioner’s birth date and month and part of an identification number. Counsel argued that the redactions were narrow and protected against identity theft and similar risks. The letter also referred to sensitive medical, mental-health, and removal-related issues in the underlying habeas case.
The order states: “Application GRANTED.” It directs the clerk to retain docket entry 19 under seal. The text does not state that the application was granted in part, denied in part, or dismissed. The order is a procedural ruling about access to court records, not a decision on the underlying habeas claims.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.