United States v. Maranatha Human Services, Inc.
- Kenneth Karas
- 7:18-cv-08892
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In United States v. Maranatha, Judge Karas granted Maranatha’s unopposed request to redact personal and patient information from summary-judgment exhibits.
Maranatha Human Services, Inc.; the plaintiff; and patients, potential patients, and current or former Maranatha employees whose names, home addresses, or cell-phone numbers appeared in the exhibits.
What happened
In United States v. Maranatha Human Services, Inc., Maranatha asked to redact or seal portions of exhibits supporting its summary-judgment motion. The proposed redactions covered home addresses, individual cell-phone numbers, and patient or potential-patient names.
Maranatha argued that the redactions would protect private information and information related to medical care. It also said the redactions did not concern material relevant to the court’s consideration of the summary-judgment motion. The plaintiff’s counsel consented to the request.
Judge Kenneth M. Karas granted the motion and ordered it entered. The opinion does not separately describe which specific exhibits or portions were redacted beyond the categories listed in Maranatha’s letter.
The detailed version
- United States v. Maranatha Human Services, Inc. · No. 7:18-cv-08892
- Kenneth Karas
- Mar. 29, 2023
Background
Maranatha Human Services, Inc. submitted an unopposed letter motion under Rule IX of Judge Karas’s Individual Rules of Practice to redact or seal portions of exhibits filed in support of its motion for summary judgment. The letter identified proposed redactions involving home addresses, patient or potential-patient names, and individual cell-phone numbers. The exhibits were attached to a declaration dated March 28, 2023.
Arguments
Maranatha described the proposed redactions as non-substantive and intended to prevent public disclosure of personally identifiable information. It argued that patient names related to the provision or potential provision of medical care and referred to the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act and federal health-information regulations. It also cited decisions concerning the protection of private contact information, including home addresses and phone numbers. Maranatha stated that none of the proposed redactions covered information likely to be relevant to the court’s consideration of the summary-judgment motion. The plaintiff’s counsel consented to the proposed redactions.
Ruling
The court granted Maranatha’s motion to seal or redact the identified information. The order states, “Granted. So Ordered.” The opinion does not provide a separate explanation identifying each exhibit or specifying the precise redactions beyond the categories described in Maranatha’s letter.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.