Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Sept. 28, 2022

Holmes v. City of New York

Judge
Valerie Caproni
Docket
1:21-cv-10628
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
2
Civil ProcedureDiscovery
In one sentence

In Holmes v. Trapasso, Judge Gorenstein granted the City’s request to seal filings containing two former officers’ home addresses.

Who this affects

The order affects the City of New York, the plaintiff, and former officers Amanda Vanwieren-Johnson and Ralph Pena by restricting public access to specified docket entries and their home addresses.

What happened

In Holmes v. Trapasso, the City of New York asked the court to seal four docket entries because they contained the personal addresses of former officers Amanda Vanwieren-Johnson and Ralph Pena. The plaintiff agreed to the request.

The court granted the request. It ordered Docket Entries 12, 14, 27, and 28, along with the exhibits to Docket Entry 33, sealed so that only the attorneys and the court could view them. It also ordered the City to file redacted versions of the four docket entries, removing only the home addresses.

United States Magistrate Judge Gabriel W. Gorenstein issued the order on September 28, 2022.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
Holmes v. City of New York · No. 1:21-cv-10628
Judge
Valerie Caproni
Date
Sept. 28, 2022

Background

The Office of the Corporation Counsel of the City of New York, identified as an interested party, asked the court to seal Docket Entries 12, 14, 27, and 28. The City said those documents contained the personal addresses of officers Amanda Vanwieren-Johnson and Ralph Pena. It alternatively asked the court to order that those addresses be redacted. The plaintiff consented to the application.

The City argued that police officers’ home addresses may be protected by the official-information privilege when safety and privacy interests outweigh a party’s interest in disclosure. The submission stated, based on information and belief, that Vanwieren-Johnson and Pena were retired officers and that making their addresses public could jeopardize their safety. It also stated that the plaintiff appeared to have no interest in the addresses other than serving process at that time.

Ruling

Judge Gorenstein granted the application. He directed the Clerk to seal Docket Entries 12, 14, 27, and 28, as well as the exhibits to Docket Entry 33—Docket Entries 33-1, 33-2, 33-3, and 33-4—by making them available for viewing only by the attorneys in the matter and the Court. He further directed the City to promptly file a letter attaching redacted versions of Docket Entries 12, 14, 27, and 28, with only the home addresses redacted.

The authoritative version

Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.