Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Mar. 16, 2023

Rodriguez v. City of New York

Judge
George Daniels
Docket
1:20-cv-11045
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
2
Civil ProcedureDiscovery
In one sentence

In Rodriguez v. City of New York, Judge Aaron ordered defendants to explain why documents should remain sealed or they may be unsealed.

Who this affects

Peter Rodriguez and the defendants, because the order concerns whether Rodriguez’s opposition papers and related documents will remain sealed.

What happened

In Rodriguez v. City of New York, the defendants asked the court to seal documents that Peter Rodriguez filed while opposing their summary-judgment motion. The documents had been produced by the defendants and marked confidential under a protective order.

The court said the party asking for sealing must show why it is justified. It found that the defendants had not tried to meet that burden. The court had temporarily sealed the requested pages and filed an unredacted version of Rodriguez’s opposition papers under seal.

Judge Stewart D. Aaron ordered the defendants to show cause by March 23, 2023, why the seal should not be lifted. If they do not do so, the court intends to direct the clerk to unseal the entire filing. The order did not decide the underlying summary-judgment motion.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
Rodriguez v. City of New York · No. 1:20-cv-11045
Judge
George Daniels
Date
Mar. 16, 2023

Background

In their reply supporting a motion for summary judgment, the defendants asked the court to seal documents that Peter Rodriguez had filed with his opposition. The defendants had produced those documents and marked them confidential under a protective order. That order required a party seeking to file court papers containing protected material to apply to the court.

Court’s Analysis

The court explained that the party seeking to seal documents bears the burden of showing that sealing is warranted. The defendants had not attempted to meet that burden. The court had temporarily placed the requested pages under seal before filing its Report and Recommendation, and it filed an unredacted version of Rodriguez’s opposition papers under seal as ECF No. 106.

Order

The court ordered the defendants to show cause no later than March 23, 2023, why the seal should not be lifted. If the defendants failed to show cause, the court stated that it intended to instruct the clerk to unseal the entirety of ECF No. 106. This order addressed the sealing request and did not resolve the underlying summary-judgment motion.

The authoritative version

Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.