Rosario v. City of New York
- Lorna Schofield
- 1:18-cv-04023
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Rosario v. City of New York, Judge Schofield granted an application requiring redactions and sealing of filings involving text messages.
Plaintiff Rosario, Defendants, and non-party witnesses whose communications or contact information appeared in the filings. Public access to Docket 407 was limited to the parties identified in the appendix at Docket 419-1.
What happened
In Rosario v. City of New York, Plaintiff Rosario asked the court to keep images of text messages with non-party witnesses under seal and to require redactions from public filings that quoted, summarized, or paraphrased those messages or included third parties’ contact information. Rosario argued that a prior protective order covered the communications and that disclosure could invade non-parties’ privacy and prejudice him during the trial.
The court granted the application. It ordered Defendants to file a redacted version of the letter at Docket 407 by August 3, 2022. It also ordered Plaintiff to file under seal, and publicly file in redacted form, letters and exhibits concerning Defendants’ motions to compel and motion for sanctions that had previously been emailed to Chambers. The Clerk was directed to seal Docket 407 and close the motions at Docket Nos. 419 and 430. Only the parties listed in the appendix at Docket 419-1 were permitted access to Docket 407.
Judge Lorna G. Schofield signed the order on July 29, 2022. This was a filing-secrecy and redaction ruling, not a decision on the underlying claims.
The detailed version
- Rosario v. City of New York · No. 1:18-cv-04023
- Lorna Schofield
- July 29, 2022
Background
Plaintiff Rosario asked the court to maintain under seal attachments containing images of text messages exchanged with non-party witnesses. He also asked the court to permit public filings that referred to those messages only after redacting quotations, summaries or paraphrases of the messages, and third parties’ contact information. Rosario relied in part on a 2018 protective order, which treated correspondence between Plaintiff and his friends or family as confidential and required parties seeking to file such material to follow the court’s procedures for filing under seal.
Rosario also argued that public disclosure would improperly expose private family disputes, criminal-history references, and other potentially embarrassing information involving people who were not parties to the case. He further argued that disclosure during the trial could prejudice him because of inflammatory language in the messages.
Ruling
The court granted the application. By August 3, 2022, Defendants were ordered to file a redacted version of the letter at Docket 407 on the public docket. By the same date, Plaintiff was ordered to file under seal the letters and exhibits concerning Defendants’ motions to compel and motion for sanctions that had previously been emailed to Chambers, along with redacted versions of those materials on the public docket.
The Clerk of Court was directed to seal Docket 407 and close the motions at Docket Nos. 419 and 430. Access to Docket 407 was limited to the parties identified in the appendix at Docket 419-1. The order addressed sealing and redaction of court filings; it did not resolve the underlying claims.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.