J.L. v. New York City Department of Education
- Katharine Parker
- 1:17-cv-07150
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
In J.L. v. New York City Department of Education, Judge Parker ordered plaintiffs to file proposed sealed materials so she could evaluate their request.
The plaintiffs, the New York City Department of Education, and non-party students whose medical and educational records were involved in the case.
What happened
In J.L. v. New York City Department of Education, the plaintiffs asked to seal briefing, declarations, exhibits, and a statement of undisputed facts connected to anticipated default-judgment and summary-judgment motions. The materials concerned medically fragile students, including medical, educational, disability-related, and personal information about the plaintiffs’ children and other students.
The plaintiffs relied on a confidentiality order and student-privacy protections, including the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act. The court explained that court filings generally are presumed open to the public, and sealing must be narrowly limited to information whose disclosure would harm important privacy interests. A party’s agreement to label information confidential, by itself, is not enough.
Judge Parker directed the plaintiffs to file the proposed sealed documents so the court could evaluate the sealing request. The court also said it was unclear whether the plaintiffs sought to seal entire filings or use redactions, warned that wholesale sealing likely would not be narrowly tailored, and directed the parties to discuss whether information about the Department of Education’s policies needed sealing. The court did not decide the underlying education-services claims or finally rule on the sealing request.
The detailed version
- J.L. v. New York City Department of Education · No. 1:17-cv-07150
- Katharine Parker
- May 1, 2023
Background
The plaintiffs are parents of medically fragile students who required specialized nursing services and transportation to attend school. They alleged that the New York City Department of Education failed to timely approve and provide those services, leaving two students unable to attend school for years. The amended complaint asserted claims under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, the Americans with Disabilities Act, Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, and 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The plaintiffs also challenged the Department of Education’s policies and procedures for providing services to medically fragile students.
The plaintiffs asked to file under seal their memorandum supporting motions for default judgment and summary judgment, declarations and exhibits, and a statement of undisputed facts. They relied on a 2019 confidentiality and protective order covering student records, medical and educational information, and other sensitive information. The case also involved records concerning non-party students, whose parents had received notices allowing them to opt out of production under the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act.
Sealing Standards
The court explained that judicial documents—court filings relevant to a court’s decision—are generally subject to a strong presumption of public access. Before sealing such documents, the court must determine whether they are judicial documents, assess the weight of the public-access presumption, and decide whether privacy or other interests outweigh that presumption. Because the requested materials concerned dispositive motions, the court stated that sealing would require specific findings showing that it was essential to protect higher interests and was narrowly tailored.
The court noted that student medical, educational, disability-related, and personal information can implicate significant privacy interests. But it also stated that broad sealing of entire motion papers generally is not narrowly tailored. Merely designating information as confidential under an agreement between the parties is not by itself a sufficient basis for sealing.
Court’s Action
The court stated that the proposed sealed documents had not been filed with the letter motion. It directed the plaintiffs to file those documents under seal so the court could evaluate the sealing request. The court further stated that it was unclear whether the plaintiffs sought to seal all briefing and exhibits or instead proposed redactions. It warned that sealing the briefing and exhibits in their entirety likely would not satisfy the narrow-tailoring requirement.
The court directed the parties to discuss in good faith whether information about the Department of Education’s policies and procedures needed to be filed under seal. If the parties agreed in writing that particular information designated confidential did not need sealing, that information could be filed without redaction without violating the confidentiality stipulation. The court permitted the plaintiffs to file a revised, more narrowly tailored sealing motion by May 15, 2023. The order did not finally grant or deny the sealing motion and did not decide the underlying claims.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.