Curran-Groome v. City Of New York
- John Cronan
- 1:22-cv-00710
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In Curran-Groome v. City of New York, Judge Cronan granted sealing but denied removing the case from mediation because plaintiff showed no reason to revisit an earlier order.
The plaintiff and the City of New York were affected by the sealing ruling and the denial of the request to remove the case from mediation; the settlement letter was kept from the public docket.
What happened
In Curran-Groome v. City of New York, the plaintiff asked to file a letter under seal because it discussed settlement positions and requested relief from attending a mediation session. The defendants agreed that the letter was not appropriate for public filing.
The court granted the sealing request, finding that the letter contained sensitive discussions about settlement. The court also considered the plaintiff’s request to remove the case from mediation under the court’s local rule.
The court denied that request because the plaintiff had not shown a reason to revisit an earlier order. Judge John P. Cronan directed the clerk to close motions numbered 33 and 34.
The detailed version
- Curran-Groome v. City Of New York · No. 1:22-cv-00710
- John Cronan
- July 14, 2022
Background
The plaintiff asked permission to file under seal a letter concerning settlement issues. The letter also asked the court to relieve the plaintiff from attending mediation under the court’s 1983 Plan, because the defendants had stated that they were in a “no pay” position. The defendants’ counsel agreed that the letter was inappropriate for public filing.
Court’s Analysis and Rulings
The court granted the plaintiff’s sealing request because the letter contained sensitive discussions about the parties’ settlement discussions. The court cited Second Circuit authority recognizing that there is no presumptive public right of access to settlement negotiations and related documents.
The court denied the plaintiff’s request to remove the case from mediation under Southern District of New York Local Civil Rule 83.10. The court stated that the plaintiff had not shown cause for revisiting its previous order, identified as Docket Number 21.
Disposition
The sealing request was granted. The request to remove the case from mediation was denied. The court directed the clerk to close the pending motions numbered 33 and 34.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.