Edelman v. NYU Langone Health System

Background

The opinion addresses Defendants’ motion to seal portions of filings in Edelman v. NYU Langone Health System. The court had previously granted sealing or redaction for certain private and competitively sensitive materials and individually identifiable health information, while identifying categories where narrower redactions could adequately protect the information.

Requested Redactions

Defendants proposed narrower protection for specific business and compensation information, including a business-loan amount, compensation terms, a compensation change, work targets, and other compensation and productivity figures. Some of that information concerned nonparties. Defendants argued that disclosure could help competitors recruit physicians and practices or otherwise exploit NYU’s business information. They also relied on the privacy interests of nonparty individuals whose compensation information appeared in the filings.

Defendants separately sought to keep protected health information from public disclosure. The requested protection included a medical-record number; details and dates of patient care; communications that could identify a patient; and documents containing patient names, birth dates, pictures, phone numbers, visit dates, and descriptions of care. Defendants argued that one collection of patient communications could not be adequately protected through targeted redactions and should remain sealed in its entirety. They also identified confidential business information, nonparty compensation information, and health information in deposition excerpts filed by Plaintiff.

Legal Standard

The court explained that judicial documents generally carry a common-law and First Amendment right of public access. That right is not absolute. A court may limit access when specific findings show that sealing is necessary to protect higher values and the restriction is narrowly tailored. Relevant countervailing interests include privacy and business concerns. The court also cited the protection generally given to individually identifiable health information, including medical-record numbers and details about patients’ medical conditions and care.

Ruling

The court stated that filing the identified documents in redacted form was necessary to prevent unauthorized disclosure of confidential business information and personal information, including personal health information. Defendants’ motion to seal was GRANTED with respect to the narrower redactions and sealing requests proposed in the attachments to Dkt. No. 161.

The court ordered Defendants to file public-docket versions with the narrower redactions by October 28, 2022. The opinion does not state the outcome of any underlying claims in the case.