Rauch Industries, Inc. v. Heart Artist LLC
- Vyskocil
- 1:22-cv-00909
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Rauch Industries v. Heart Artist, Judge Vyskocil granted Rauch’s request to seal unredacted interrogatory responses and publicly file a redacted version.
Rauch Industries, Inc., the eight Rauch employees whose personal addresses appeared in the responses, the defendants, and members of the public seeking access to the document.
What happened
Rauch Industries asked the court to seal its responses to the defendants’ interrogatories and allow a redacted version to be filed publicly. The responses contained the personal addresses of eight Rauch employees, and the defendants consented to the request.
Rauch argued that limited redactions were justified to protect the employees’ privacy while preserving public access to court documents.
Judge Vyskocil granted the request, allowing the unredacted responses to remain under seal and a redacted version to be filed publicly.
The detailed version
- Rauch Industries, Inc. v. Heart Artist LLC · No. 1:22-cv-00909
- Vyskocil
- Aug. 9, 2022
Background
Rauch Industries asked the court to place under seal an exhibit containing Rauch’s responses and objections to the defendants’ first set of interrogatories. Rauch also asked to file a version with redactions. The exhibit had been publicly filed by the defendants and contained the personal addresses of eight Rauch employees. The defendants consented to Rauch’s request.
Request and Legal Basis
Rauch argued that personal addresses are sensitive personal information and that redacting them would protect its employees’ privacy interests. Rauch also argued that the proposed redactions were limited and narrowly tailored, preserving the public’s access to the remainder of the document. The request relied on the principle that public access to judicial documents is not absolute and must be balanced against competing privacy interests.
Ruling
Judge Mary Kay Vyskocil granted the request. The order permits the unredacted responses to be protected under seal and allows Rauch to file a redacted version publicly. The opinion states the disposition as “Granted” and does not provide separate reasoning beyond the request and supporting arguments described above.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.