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

Cunningham v. Agro

Judge
Andrew Carter
Docket
1:15-cv-01266
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
2
Civil ProcedureEvidence
In one sentence

In Cunningham v. Agro, Judge Carter granted the motion to seal sensitive records, effective retroactively.

Who this affects

The parties and anyone seeking access to the records filed in support of the defendant’s anticipated summary-judgment motion, including correctional, medical, mental-health, and deposition materials.

What happened

Cunningham v. Agro concerns a request to keep records confidential in a lawsuit alleging constitutional violations during detention at a New York City Department of Correction facility.

The defendant sought to seal correctional records, medical and mental-health records, and a deposition transcript discussing the plaintiff’s medical and mental-health needs. The plaintiff’s lawyer consented to the request.

Judge Andrew L. Carter, Jr. granted the motion to seal retroactively. The short order does not identify each document that was sealed or explain the scope of any continuing restrictions.

The detailed version

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

Case
Cunningham v. Agro · No. 1:15-cv-01266
Judge
Andrew Carter
Date
Sept. 28, 2022

Background

The plaintiff alleged that constitutional rights were violated while the plaintiff was detained at the Anna M. Kross Center, a New York City Department of Correction facility. The opinion identifies former Warden Rose Agro as the sole defendant and states that the defendant planned to seek summary judgment on the remaining claims.

Before filing that motion, the defendant requested permission to file certain supporting materials under seal. The materials included Department of Correction records, the plaintiff’s medical and mental-health records, and the plaintiff’s deposition transcript, which discussed medical and mental-health needs. The plaintiff’s counsel consented to the request.

Ruling

The court stated that it had received the parties’ requests to seal documents and granted the motion to seal retroactively. The order does not provide further details about which documents were sealed or the duration or scope of the seal.

Disposition

The motion to seal was granted retroactively. This was an order concerning document confidentiality, not a decision on the parties’ underlying constitutional claims or the anticipated summary-judgment motion.

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.