Corbett v. Hochul
- Lorna Schofield
- 1:22-cv-05867
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Corbett v. Hochul, Judge Schofield granted in part a request to seal a handgun-license application and ordered related documents sealed.
Jonathan Corbett, the City and State Defendants, their listed counsel, and public access to the specified court filings were affected. The documents remain sealed or were sealed, with access limited to the people listed in the appendix.
What happened
In Corbett v. Hochul, City Defendants asked to file a further-redacted version of Jonathan Corbett’s pending application for a carry business handgun license. Corbett had raised concerns about information concerning his work history and his business’s cash-handling practices.
The court considered whether the application was subject to public access and whether Corbett’s privacy interests outweighed that access. It found that the application’s contents were not disputed and did not affect the pending request for a preliminary injunction.
Judge Lorna G. Schofield granted in part the sealing request. The court ordered documents 64-1 and 70 to remain sealed and document 72 to be sealed, with access limited to the people listed in an appendix; it also directed the Clerk of Court to close the motion at document 69. The court cautioned that the documents could be unsealed later if they became important to deciding a motion.
The detailed version
- Corbett v. Hochul · No. 1:22-cv-05867
- Lorna Schofield
- Nov. 29, 2022
Background
City Defendants—Eric Adams, Keechant Sewell, and Hugh Bogle, sued in their official capacities—asked for permission to file a further-redacted version of Jonathan Corbett’s pending application for a carry business handgun license. The application had been filed as an exhibit to City Defendants’ opposition to Corbett’s motion for a preliminary injunction. Corbett identified his prior work history and his business’s cash-handling practices as sensitive information.
The City Defendants had previously asked to seal or further redact the exhibit. The court granted that earlier application and directed the City Defendants to file a letter motion seeking approval of the redacted filing. The City Defendants then publicly filed the relevant portion with proposed redactions and filed an unredacted copy under seal.
Court’s analysis
The court applied the three-part test for sealing judicial documents: whether the material is subject to a presumed right of public access, how strong that presumption is, and whether competing interests— including privacy—outweigh it. The court found that the contents of the gun-license application were not in dispute and had no bearing on the pending preliminary-injunction motion. It therefore concluded that Corbett’s privacy interest in keeping the document sealed outweighed any presumption of public access.
The court cautioned that the redacted information might become important to a later motion to dismiss or motion for summary judgment. It stated that the documents could therefore be unsealed at a later stage.
Ruling and effect
The court’s sealing application was granted in part. It granted Corbett’s request to keep the gun-license application sealed in its entirety. The court directed that docket entries 64-1 and 70 be sealed or remain under seal, and that docket entry 72 be sealed, with access provided to the parties listed in the appendix. The Clerk of Court was directed to close the motion at docket entry 69. The opinion also notes that the City Defendants had already redacted Corbett’s date of birth as required by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.