Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled June 26, 2023

Keesh v. Quick

Judge
Philip Halpern
Docket
7:19-cv-08942
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
2
Civil Procedure
In one sentence

In Keesh v. Quick, Judge Halpern granted permission to seal medical information while keeping a redacted letter public.

Who this affects

The order protects Tyheem Keesh’s medical privacy and determines which versions of his letter are available to the public.

What happened

In Keesh v. Quick, the plaintiff asked to file a redacted letter seeking an adjournment of the trial schedule. The letter discussed the plaintiff’s medical treatment, and the defendant did not oppose the request.

The court approved the application. It ordered that the unredacted letter be filed under seal and that the redacted version remain available to the public.

Judge Philip M. Halpern ruled that protecting sensitive medical information outweighed public access because the information was unrelated to the claims or defenses in the case.

The detailed version

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

Case
Keesh v. Quick · No. 7:19-cv-08942
Judge
Philip Halpern
Date
June 26, 2023

Background

The plaintiff, Tyheem Keesh, asked for permission to file a redacted version of a letter motion seeking an adjournment of the trial schedule. The letter concerned his medical treatment. The defendant did not oppose the request.

Court’s reasoning

The court recognized a general presumption that judicial documents should be publicly accessible. It also recognized that people have significant privacy interests in their medical information. The court concluded that the proposed redactions would protect sensitive medical information that had no bearing on the claims or defenses in the case.

Ruling

Judge Philip M. Halpern granted the application. The unredacted version of the plaintiff’s letter was ordered filed under seal as Document 171, while the redacted version would remain the publicly filed version as Document 172.

The authoritative version

Read the full 2-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.