Edelman v. NYU Langone Health System

Background

The defendants filed a motion for summary judgment and motions to seal portions of their legal memoranda, declarations, and exhibits. Dr. Sari Edelman also filed materials under seal but did not file a separate motion to seal, as required by the stipulated confidentiality order and the court’s Individual Rules.

Court’s analysis

The court explained that the public has a longstanding right to access judicial documents, but that right is not absolute. Courts must balance public access against competing interests, including the protection of confidential business information and personal health information.

The court found that specific details of individuals’ contracts and compensation, including the contracts themselves, could remain sealed. It also stated that individually identifiable health information protected by the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act could remain sealed. However, the court noted that information is not protected by that law merely because it generally discusses or refers to patient care; there must be a reasonable basis to believe the information could identify the person who received the care.

The court found that other materials appeared to contain mostly general information that was neither private nor competitively sensitive. Examples included general employment practices such as setting productivity targets, paying employees based on productivity, and using prior productivity to predict future productivity. The court also noted that much general information about compensation and patient care was already disclosed in publicly filed materials.

Ruling

The court granted in part and denied in part the motions to seal. It ordered the parties to file a letter motion by October 5, 2022, if they wanted to keep any of the identified documents sealed in whole or in part. The parties were directed to use narrower redactions for materials implicating protected health information and to file more narrowly redacted or unredacted versions of other documents when possible.

The order also addressed deposition transcripts and related exhibits that Dr. Edelman had filed under seal. Because neither side had filed a motion to seal those materials, and because they appeared mostly or entirely subject to public access, the court required any party seeking continued sealing to file a letter motion by the same deadline.

All sealed documents were to remain sealed temporarily pending further motion practice. The Clerk of Court was directed to close the motions at Docket Numbers 116 and 143. The opinion does not state a ruling on the defendants’ motion for summary judgment.