Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled June 2, 2023

D.J.C.V. v. United States

Judge
Paul Engelmayer
Docket
1:20-cv-05747
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
4
Civil ProcedureImmigration
In one sentence

In D.J.C.V. v. United States, Judge Engelmayer allowed government filings under seal and ordered redacted versions filed publicly by June 6.

Who this affects

The Government, the plaintiffs, nonparty individuals whose personal information appears in Department of Homeland Security records, and certain Department of Homeland Security personnel whose names may be redacted.

What happened

In D.J.C.V., et al. v. United States of America, the Government asked to file unredacted documents under seal and redacted versions publicly. The documents supported its motion to dismiss the complaint under Rule 12(b)(1), which concerns the court’s authority to hear a case. The Government said the documents contained law-enforcement information and personal information about plaintiffs and other people.

The Government proposed redacting information about immigration-enforcement methods, detention procedures, law-enforcement systems, internal policy discussions, certain Department of Homeland Security employees’ names, and personal information. It argued that the redactions would protect law-enforcement operations, security, and privacy. Plaintiffs’ counsel consented to the requested filing deadline.

Judge Engelmayer granted the Government’s request to file the unredacted documents under seal. He ordered the Government to file redacted versions on the public docket by June 6, 2023. The provided order does not report a decision on the underlying tort claims or the Government’s motion to dismiss.

The detailed version

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

Case
D.J.C.V. v. United States · No. 1:20-cv-05747
Judge
Paul Engelmayer
Date
June 2, 2023

Background

The action was brought under the Federal Tort Claims Act. The Government asked the court for permission to file unredacted versions of several documents under seal and redacted versions on the public docket. The documents included the Government’s memorandum supporting its motion to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1), along with declarations and exhibits.

The Government stated that the materials contained confidential information concerning law-enforcement interests, the safety and security of Government personnel and facilities, and personal information about the plaintiffs and nonparty individuals. The Government also requested until June 6, 2023, to file both versions of the materials. The opinion states that plaintiffs’ counsel consented to the extension request.

Requested Redactions

The proposed redactions covered: Department of Homeland Security law-enforcement techniques and strategies at the Southwest border; procedures for apprehending and detaining noncitizens entering between ports of entry; internal system codes and information about law-enforcement systems; nonpublic discussions of border-security policy and public messaging; names of certain low-level Department of Homeland Security personnel; and full names and other personal information of plaintiffs and nonparty individuals appearing in Department of Homeland Security records.

The Government argued that the information had a low public-access interest and that disclosure could risk circumvention of immigration-enforcement procedures, compromise border security, create risks to information systems, and threaten the privacy and safety of Government employees and other individuals.

Court’s Ruling

The court granted the Government’s request to file the unredacted versions of the documents under seal. The court ordered the Government to file redacted versions of those documents on the public docket by June 6, 2023.

The order concerns sealing and public filing of documents. The provided text does not state that the court decided the Government’s Rule 12(b)(1) motion or the underlying Federal Tort Claims Act claims.

The authoritative version

Read the full 4-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.