Neske v. Banks
- Analisa Torres
- 1:22-cv-06946
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In Neske v. Banks, Judge Torres granted defendants’ request to file a confidential administrative record under seal to protect a minor student’s private information.
The order affects the defendants’ ability to file the certified administrative record, A.N.’s privacy, the plaintiffs, and public access to the specified court filings.
What happened
In Neske v. Banks, the defendants asked to file under seal the certified administrative record in the plaintiffs’ action under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. The record concerns A.N., a minor student represented by Dorothy and Christopher Neske.
The defendants said the record contained confidential information, including A.N.’s name, date of birth, and other personal identifying information. They also reported that the record had initially been attached to a filing that was not sealed.
Judge Analisa Torres ruled that the need to protect this information outweighed the public’s general right to inspect court filings. She granted the request and directed the Clerk of Court to restrict access to the specified filings.
The detailed version
- Neske v. Banks · No. 1:22-cv-06946
- Analisa Torres
- Feb. 27, 2023
Background
Dorothy Neske and Christopher Neske sued David C. Banks, in his official capacity as Chancellor of the New York City Department of Education, and the New York City Department of Education. The action is brought under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act and concerns A.N., a minor student.
Motion to Seal
The defendants asked for permission to file under seal a certified copy of the administrative record underlying the action. They stated that the record contained confidential information, including A.N.’s name, date of birth, and other personal identifying information. In a separate letter, the defendants explained that they had mistakenly attached the certified record to a request-to-seal letter that was not itself filed under seal.
Ruling
The court applied the standard described in Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga concerning the public’s presumptive right of access to judicial documents. It concluded that the interests supporting sealing the administrative record outweighed that presumption. The court therefore granted the defendants’ request. It directed the Clerk of Court to terminate the motions at ECF Nos. 20 and 21 and to change the viewing level for ECF Nos. 20-1, 20-2, and 20-3 to court users and the applicable party.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.