Joseph v. City of New York

Background

Jose Joseph sued the City of New York and named individual defendants, alleging that they falsely arrested and maliciously prosecuted him after a complaining witness accused him of committing second-degree strangulation. At the time of the incident, Joseph was a New York City Police Department officer.

The defendants attached several materials to their answer: two body-camera videos, a domestic incident report signed by the complaining witness, two transcripts from Joseph’s disciplinary trial before the New York City Office of Administrative Trials and Hearings, and the report and recommendation issued after that trial. Because the videos could not be uploaded to the electronic docket, the defendants submitted cover sheets and proposed sending the videos to the court on a compact disc.

Sealing and Redaction Request

With Joseph’s consent, the defendants asked for permission to file the body-camera videos under seal and to submit the domestic incident report and disciplinary-trial transcripts in redacted form. The proposed redactions removed the complaining witness’s address and full name, while retaining her initials.

The defendants argued that the videos showed the witness’s interaction with responding officers, injuries to her neck and chin, the inside of her mother’s home, and statements about a prior domestic-abuse incident involving a nonparty. They also argued that protecting the witness’s identity and sensitive information would protect her privacy and avoid discouraging other people from reporting domestic violence.

The application relied on the Second Circuit’s three-part framework for sealing court records: determining whether the material is a judicial document, weighing the presumption of public access, and balancing that presumption against competing interests. The defendants argued that redacting the report and transcripts would protect the witness’s identity while leaving her allegations available for public review. They argued that sealing the videos was necessary because there was no practical way to remove only the sensitive material while leaving a useful recording.

Ruling

The court granted the application. The defendants were ordered to send the body-camera exhibits identified as Exhibits A and B of their answer to Judge Stewart D. Aaron on a compact disc no later than March 20, 2023. The court stated that, upon receiving the videos, it would file them under seal. The granted application also authorized the defendants’ requested redacted submissions of the domestic incident report and disciplinary-trial transcripts.

The opinion text includes a case header identifying Lewis Kaplan, but the sealing application is addressed to and endorsed by Magistrate Judge Stewart D. Aaron, whose name appears in the order.