Rapp v. Fowler
- Lewis Kaplan
- 1:20-cv-09586
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Rapp v. Fowler, Judge Kaplan granted a motion to seal, subject to possible reconsideration after reviewing redactions and additional information.
The order directly affected access to deposition-transcript excerpts concerning Fowler and third parties, as well as the parties and the public seeking access to those court materials.
What happened
In Rapp v. Fowler, a filing sought permission to keep certain deposition-transcript excerpts under seal. The excerpts concerned allegations or rumors involving Kevin Spacey Fowler and other people that counsel said were unrelated to the plaintiffs’ claims and upcoming trial.
The court granted the motion to seal, but said it might reconsider that decision after reviewing the proposed redactions and more specific information about the reasons for keeping the papers sealed. The opinion does not identify which specific excerpts were sealed.
Judge Lewis Kaplan entered the order on September 23, 2022. The filing requesting sealing was submitted on Fowler’s behalf, while the court’s endorsement described the request as the plaintiff’s motion to seal; the opinion does not explain that discrepancy.
The detailed version
- Rapp v. Fowler · No. 1:20-cv-09586
- Lewis Kaplan
- Sept. 23, 2022
Background
A letter submitted on behalf of Kevin Spacey Fowler asked the court for permission to file under seal limited excerpts from deposition transcripts. The excerpts concerned accusations or rumors about Fowler involving third parties. The letter stated that Fowler denied the allegations and argued that the information was not relevant to the case or the upcoming trial.
The letter also argued that public disclosure could intrude on Fowler’s and third parties’ privacy interests and could prejudice Fowler by affecting the potential jury pool. It said the proposed redactions were narrowly limited to transcript excerpts that would accompany materials supporting motions in limine, while the motions and briefs would contain few, if any, redactions. The letter stated that plaintiff’s counsel did not agree to the proposed sealing.
Ruling
The court’s memorandum endorsement states: “Plaintiff’s motion to seal is granted subject to the possibility of reconsideration when the Court is in a position to review the proposed redactions and more specific information concerning the merits and demerits of continuing the papers under seal.” The court therefore granted the motion to seal, while expressly reserving the possibility of reconsidering that decision.
Meaning of the ruling
The order addresses access to specified court materials, not the underlying claims or defenses. It does not decide whether the allegations or rumors were true, whether the materials were relevant at trial, or the merits of the case. The opinion does not identify the specific documents ultimately covered by the sealing order or explain the discrepancy between the letter submitted for Fowler and the endorsement’s reference to a plaintiff’s motion.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.