Russell v. Westchester Community College
- Philip Halpern
- 7:16-cv-01712
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Russell v. Westchester Community College, Judge Halpern granted medical-record sealing but required electronic filing and left nonsensitive documents unsealed.
Suzan Russell; Westchester Community College; the County of Westchester; Veronica Delcourt; Heather Ostman; and members of the public seeking access to the case filings.
What happened
Suzan Russell’s case against Westchester Community College and others involved claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act and New York State Human Rights Law. The parties asked to seal medical records and related materials they planned to submit with a summary-judgment motion.
The court granted the request to file the medical records under seal, recognizing the privacy interests in sensitive medical information. It did not allow documents without sensitive information, such as counsel’s declaration, to be sealed.
Judge Philip M. Halpern also denied the request to file the materials on paper. He ordered that all documents be filed electronically under his filing procedures, with sealing or redactions limited to what was necessary to protect the information.
The detailed version
- Russell v. Westchester Community College · No. 7:16-cv-01712
- Philip Halpern
- Dec. 12, 2022
Background
The parties sought permission to file medical records and other health-related materials under seal in connection with the County Defendants’ planned motion for summary judgment. The County Defendants are identified as Westchester Community College, the County of Westchester, Veronica Delcourt, and Heather Ostman. The request was made on behalf of the County Defendants and Suzan Russell after their attorneys discussed the issue.
The proposed sealed materials included medical records, test results, medical notes, an expert report and affidavit, and other records described as confidential. The request also referred to personal information and family history. The parties separately sought permission to redact the last name of a student mentioned in Russell’s amended complaint, stating that the redaction was consistent with the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act. The order’s express ruling addressed the filing of medical records under seal and the method of filing.
Court’s analysis
The court stated that parties seeking to seal documents in a public case must show that the interest protected by sealing outweighs the presumption that the public may access judicial documents. It also noted that courts regularly protect medical information because individuals have significant privacy interests in it, including information protected by the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act.
Ruling
Judge Philip M. Halpern granted the application to file the medical records under seal. He specified that documents that do not contain sensitive information, such as counsel’s declaration, should not be filed under seal. He denied the request to file on paper and ordered that all documents be filed through the court’s electronic filing system under Rule 5(B) of his individual practices. That rule allows counsel to file proposed sealed documents under seal or to redact them only as much as necessary to protect the information at issue.
The order concerns filing and public access to documents; it does not decide the parties’ pending claims or the anticipated summary-judgment motion.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.