Banks v. McGynn, Hays & Co., Inc.
- Rochon
- 1:19-cv-05727
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Banks v. McGlynn, Judge Rochon granted a request to keep specified letters sealed and viewable only by the court.
The order affects the plaintiff’s filings and the plaintiff’s counsel’s confidential medical or health information by keeping specified documents sealed and available only for the court’s private review.
What happened
In Edward Banks v. McGlynn, Hays & Co., Inc., the plaintiff’s lawyer asked to file an unredacted letter and medical record privately because they contained sensitive health information and supported a request for remote appearances.
The lawyer argued that the information was unrelated to the claims and defenses and should not be publicly accessible. The court granted the request and ordered the identified documents to remain sealed and available only for the court’s private review.
Judge Jennifer L. Rochon issued the sealing order on October 12, 2022. The order covered the plaintiff’s letter and the redacted portions of the plaintiff’s letter-motion identified by electronic filing numbers.
The detailed version
- Banks v. McGynn, Hays & Co., Inc. · No. 1:19-cv-05727
- Rochon
- Oct. 13, 2022
Background
In these consolidated cases, counsel for the plaintiffs asked to file an unredacted letter and a supporting medical record under seal and for the court’s private review only. Counsel stated that the documents contained highly sensitive and confidential medical or health information and requested remote appearances for medical or health reasons.
Counsel also argued that the information was irrelevant to the underlying claims and defenses and would not otherwise be considered a public court record. The letter cited the common-law presumption of public access to court records but argued that the presumption did not apply to this information.
Ruling
The court granted the request. It ordered that the plaintiff’s letter and the redacted portions of the plaintiff’s letter-motion identified in the order would remain sealed and available only for the court’s private review.
The opinion text contains an apparent docket-reference inconsistency: it identifies some electronic filing numbers under docket 21-cv-00679 even though the surrounding references also identify docket 19-cv-05727. This summary does not attempt to correct that inconsistency.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.