Doe v. New York University

Background

John Doe brought claims against New York University concerning the university’s decision to expel him after a disciplinary proceeding found him “responsible” for stalking, sexual harassment, and sexual exploitation. The opinion addresses two motions to seal evidence connected to pending summary-judgment motions: NYU’s motion filed at ECF No. 90 and John Doe’s motion filed at ECF No. 97.

The case had been reassigned to Judge Mary Kay Vyskocil on March 8, 2023. Judge Woods, who previously presided over the case, had allowed John Doe to proceed under a pseudonym because of the sensitive subject matter and the privacy interests of John Doe and Jane.

Legal standard

The court explained that judicial documents generally carry a presumption of public access, but that presumption is not absolute. The court must determine whether the materials are judicial documents, assess the weight of the public-access presumption, identify legitimate reasons against disclosure, and balance those interests. Requests to seal require careful review for an extraordinary circumstance or compelling need.

Analysis

The court found that all materials covered by the motions were judicial documents because the parties had submitted them for use in the court’s consideration of the summary-judgment motions. For most of the materials, the parties sought to conceal only the names or identifying information of John Doe, Jane, John Doe’s mother, and certain third-party witnesses. The court concluded that the public could still understand the documents and any summary-judgment decision after those redactions, so the public-access presumption was modest.

The court determined that the privacy interests of John Doe, Jane, John Doe’s mother, and other third parties were substantial because the case involved highly sensitive and personal matters. Those interests significantly outweighed the presumption of public access to the names and identifying information.

NYU separately sought to seal Exhibits 22 and 25, which were videos that could not practically be partially redacted. The court found that the public-access presumption was stronger for the videos because sealing them would prevent the public from viewing the materials entirely. Even so, the court granted sealing at this stage because NYU had publicly filed transcripts identifying what was said in each video and by whom. The transcripts provided the relevant information in another form while avoiding the additional privacy risks of publicly releasing sensitive videos.

Disposition

Judge Vyskocil granted both NYU’s and John Doe’s motions to seal. The court emphasized that the ruling applied only to the information at issue, at this stage of the case, and on the current record. It stated that the factors governing sealing and pseudonymity could weigh differently at trial. The clerk was asked to close the motions at ECF Nos. 90 and 97.