Aydemir v. Garland
- Paul Crotty
- 1:22-cv-00100
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Aydemir v. Garland, Judge Crotty received Plaintiff’s request to seal or redact an earlier order, but the provided text contains no ruling.
The plaintiff, whose identifying information is at issue, and members of the public who may access the earlier court order.
What happened
In Aydemir v. Garland, Plaintiff asked the court to seal or redact a September 6, 2022 opinion and order. Plaintiff said the document publicly revealed identifying information, including his name, employer, and residence, and that this created safety concerns.
Plaintiff said he had received asylum after fleeing Turkey and feared that persecutors could locate him through the publicly available order. He asked the court to issue an order that would allow the website hosting the document to remove it, or alternatively to replace the document with a redacted version.
The provided text is Plaintiff’s motion, not a court decision. It does not state how Judge Crotty ruled on the request, so no disposition can be reported.
The detailed version
- Aydemir v. Garland · No. 1:22-cv-00100
- Paul Crotty
- Dec. 9, 2022
Document and requested relief
The provided text is a motion submitted by Plaintiff through counsel. Plaintiff asks the court to seal, or alternatively redact, its September 6, 2022 opinion and order. The requested changes are intended to remove or obscure identifying information, including Plaintiff’s full name and the name of his employer. A proposed redacted version was attached to the motion.
Plaintiff’s position
Plaintiff states that he previously received asylum in the United States after fleeing Turkey. He says that, when he filed the case, he relied on a rule limiting remote public access to electronic files in immigration matters. Plaintiff further states that the court’s order became publicly searchable online and disclosed his name, workplace, and city of residence. He says he fears that the persecutors from whom he fled could use that information to locate him and that the public availability of the order has caused significant distress and safety concerns.
Plaintiff also states that he contacted the website hosting the opinion to request its removal. According to the motion, the website told him that it would require a court order stating that the document was sealed before removing it.
Legal basis offered
Plaintiff acknowledges that a court opinion is a judicial document subject to a presumption of public access. He argues that the identifying information is not necessary to the court’s reasoning and that protecting his safety justifies sealing the opinion and order or issuing a redacted replacement. The motion cites the court’s authority to issue confidentiality orders and refers to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 5.2(c).
Disposition
The provided material does not include a ruling on the motion. It therefore does not establish whether the request to seal was granted, denied, or otherwise resolved. The materials also contain a spelling discrepancy between the case name and the plaintiff’s name as it appears in the motion.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.