Banks v. McGynn, Hays & Co., Inc.
- Rochon
- 1:21-cv-00679
- 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 for ex parte viewing.
The order affects Edward Banks, his counsel, and access to the specified letters and related medical information.
What happened
Edward Banks v. McGlynn, Hays & Co., Inc. involved counsel’s request to submit an unredacted letter and a medical record under seal for the court’s review only.
Counsel said the documents contained highly sensitive and confidential medical information and concerned requests for remote appearances for medical reasons. Counsel also argued that this information was unrelated to the claims and defenses and was not subject to the usual public-access rule for court records.
Judge Jennifer L. Rochon granted the request. The order said the plaintiff’s letter and the redacted portions of the plaintiff’s letter-motion would remain sealed and available only for ex parte viewing.
The detailed version
- Banks v. McGynn, Hays & Co., Inc. · No. 1:21-cv-00679
- Rochon
- Oct. 13, 2022
Background
Plaintiff’s counsel asked to file an unredacted letter and a supporting medical record under seal and for the court’s review without public access. Counsel stated that the materials contained highly sensitive and confidential medical or health information and concerned requests for remote appearances based on medical reasons.
Counsel also argued that the medical information was irrelevant to the underlying claims and defenses and therefore would not otherwise be treated as a court record subject to the common-law presumption of public access.
Ruling
Judge Jennifer L. Rochon granted the request. The order stated that the plaintiff’s letter—identified as ECF No. 108 in docket 21-cv-00679 and ECF No. 374 in docket 21-cv-00679—and the redacted portions of the plaintiff’s letter-motion—identified as ECF No. 373 in docket 19-cv-05727 and ECF No. 107 in docket 21-cv-00679—would remain sealed and under ex parte view only. The order did not otherwise resolve the underlying claims or defenses.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.