T.C. v. New York State Department of Health
- Vyskocil
- 1:22-cv-05045
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In A.H. v. New York State Department of Health, Judge Vyskocil granted plaintiffs’ request to keep unredacted exhibits sealed.
The ruling affects the plaintiffs and the public’s access to the unredacted declaration and Exhibits A through I.
What happened
A.H., et al. v. New York State Department of Health, et al. involved a request by plaintiffs to keep unredacted versions of exhibits filed in support of their motion for a preliminary injunction under seal.
The plaintiffs said the materials contained sensitive information about their diagnoses, limitations, treatment histories, treatment needs, and institutionalization. They also requested redactions to the individual plaintiffs’ names and other information.
Judge Mary Kay Vyskocil found the proposed redactions limited and appropriate and granted the request to maintain the unredacted documents under seal.
The detailed version
- T.C. v. New York State Department of Health · No. 1:22-cv-05045
- Vyskocil
- Nov. 17, 2022
Background
Plaintiffs asked the court to accept redacted versions of Exhibits A through I to a declaration filed in support of their motion for a preliminary injunction. The unredacted declaration and exhibits were filed under seal, with the proposed redactions identified.
The request concerned the names of the individual plaintiffs and sensitive health information. According to the letter, the individual plaintiffs have intellectual and developmental disabilities and are institutionalized. The materials concerned their diagnoses, functional limitations, treatment histories, treatment needs, and histories of institutionalization. The letter also stated that the defendants had consented to the plaintiffs proceeding anonymously.
Ruling
The court stated that it had carefully reviewed the proposed redactions and found them limited and appropriate. It therefore granted the request to maintain the unredacted documents under seal. The opinion does not address the merits of the underlying claims or the motion for a preliminary injunction.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.