Doe v. The Board of Directors of New York University
- Katherine Failla
- 1:23-cv-01307
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In Doe v. New York University, Judge Failla granted defendants’ request to redact one exhibit and seal another.
Doe and defendants New York University, Ezra Sacks, and Craig Jolley; the order governs the public filing of materials containing Doe’s identifying and educational information.
What happened
In Doe v. New York University, the defendants asked to redact the plaintiff’s name from a letter and to file the plaintiff’s official New York University transcript under seal. The request arose in connection with the defendants’ motion to dismiss the First Amended Complaint.
The defendants said the letter and transcript contained information that could identify the plaintiff. The transcript included the plaintiff’s name, birthdate, student identification number, courses, and grades. The plaintiff consented to the request.
Judge Katherine Polk Failla granted the application. The court directed the Clerk of Court to terminate the pending motion at docket number 35.
The detailed version
- Doe v. The Board of Directors of New York University · No. 1:23-cv-01307
- Katherine Failla
- June 21, 2023
Background
Defendants New York University, Ezra Sacks, and Craig Jolley asked for permission to file two exhibits with their motion to dismiss the First Amended Complaint. The plaintiff is identified as Doe, and an earlier court order prohibited the defendants from publicly identifying the plaintiff.
Requested filing restrictions
The defendants asked to partially redact Exhibit A, which contained a July 27, 2022 letter from Craig Jolley and another NYU employee to the plaintiff. The proposed redaction would remove the plaintiff’s name.
They also asked to file Exhibit B, the plaintiff’s official NYU transcript, entirely under seal. The defendants stated that the transcript contained the plaintiff’s name, birthdate, student identification number, courses, and grades, and that partial redaction could still risk identifying the plaintiff. The plaintiff consented to the request.
Ruling
Judge Katherine Polk Failla granted the application. The court directed the Clerk of Court to terminate the pending motion at docket number 35. The opinion text does not separately describe the filing of the exhibits after the application was granted.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.