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
- 3
In A.S. v. The Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations, Judge Cronan rejected wholesale sealing and ordered redacted filings to protect the minor’s privacy.
The minor plaintiff, whose identifying information was to be redacted, and the parties submitting the proposed settlement materials were directly affected. The order also preserved public access to non-identifying portions of those materials.
What happened
In A.S. v. The Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations of America, Inc., the parties had filed a dismissal with prejudice, but court approval was required for their settlement because the plaintiff was a minor. The plaintiff asked to file the proposed infant settlement order and supporting documents entirely under seal.
The court found that the documents were subject to a strong presumption of public access. It ruled that complete sealing was broader than necessary because some information had already been publicly disclosed. The court instead ordered redactions of the plaintiff’s name, birth dates, addresses, certain family members’ names, and other information that could identify the plaintiff.
Judge John P. Cronan ordered the plaintiff to submit the proposed redacted documents for the court’s approval under the court’s individual rules. The opinion did not decide whether to approve the settlement itself.
The detailed version
- A.S. v. The Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations of America, Inc. · No. 1:19-cv-11566
- John Cronan
- May 31, 2022
Background
The parties filed a stipulation dismissing the plaintiff’s claims with prejudice. Because the settlement involved a minor, the court required materials supporting court approval of the settlement and a proposed infant compromise order. The plaintiff then asked to file those materials entirely under seal, arguing that confidentiality would help protect settlement negotiations and the minor plaintiff’s privacy.
Court’s Analysis
The court explained that proposed settlements requiring judicial review, including settlements involving minors, carry a presumption of public access. That presumption can be overcome only when specific findings show that sealing is essential to protect a higher value and is narrowly tailored to that purpose.
The court concluded that protecting the minor plaintiff’s privacy justified sealing certain identifying information. It nevertheless found that sealing the proposed infant compromise order and supporting documents in their entirety was not narrowly tailored, particularly because much of the information had already been disclosed publicly in the case. The plaintiff also had not shown a sufficient basis for sealing the documents wholesale.
Ruling
The court ordered the plaintiff to file the proposed infant compromise order and supporting documents with redactions. The redactions were to be limited to the plaintiff’s name, which was to appear only as initials, as well as birth dates, addresses, names of family members not previously disclosed publicly, and other information that could identify the plaintiff. Judge John P. Cronan further directed the plaintiff to submit the proposed redactions for court approval under section 4.B of his Individual Rules and Practices in Civil Cases. The opinion addressed the sealing request and did not itself approve or reject the settlement.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.