Murray v. The Dutchess County Department of Public Works
- Philip Halpern
- 7:17-cv-09121
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Murray v. Dutchess County, Judge Halpern denied without prejudice a request to seal medical-record exhibits filed with opposition to defendants’ summary-judgment motion.
Nelson A. Murray and his counsel, whose request to seal medical-record exhibits was denied without prejudice to renew; the order also directed the clerk to terminate the motion sequence at Doc. 132.
What happened
Nelson A. Murray asked the court to seal Exhibits 46 and 48, which he filed with his opposition to the defendants’ motion for summary judgment. He said the exhibits contained detailed mental-health information and requested that they be viewable only by selected parties.
The exhibits included therapy progress notes, a medical report, and an expert witness’s curriculum vitae. Murray also stated that the defendants had not responded to his request to file the sealing motion with their agreement.
Judge Philip M. Halpern denied the application without prejudice to renew, referred counsel to the court’s sealing and electronic-filing rules, and directed the clerk to terminate the pending motion sequence at Doc. 132.
The detailed version
- Murray v. The Dutchess County Department of Public Works · No. 7:17-cv-09121
- Philip Halpern
- Sept. 28, 2022
Background
Nelson A. Murray requested permission to file Exhibits 46 and 48 under seal in connection with his opposition to the defendants’ motion for summary judgment. He identified the exhibits as medical records and sought to protect his privacy because they contained personal, detailed information about his mental health.
Exhibit 46 consisted of therapy progress notes covering April 2015 through June 2016. Exhibit 48 included a medical report dated September 23, 2021, and the curriculum vitae of an expert witness. Murray requested the “Selected Parties” viewing level under the court’s electronic case-filing rules. He also stated that the defendants had not responded to his request to file the sealing motion with their consent.
Ruling
Judge Philip M. Halpern denied the application without prejudice to renew. The order referred counsel to Rule 5(B) of the court’s Individual Practices and Sections 6 and 21 of the Electronic Case Filing Rules and Instructions. It also directed the clerk to terminate the motion sequence pending at Doc. 132. The order did not decide the defendants’ summary-judgment motion or explain the specific reason for denying the sealing application.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.