Carmody v. New York University

Background

Defendants had moved for summary judgment, and Plaintiff had moved for an adverse inference based on Defendants’ alleged failure to produce text messages. The court had previously denied Plaintiff’s adverse-inference motion. In connection with that motion and the summary-judgment motion, the parties sought to file various exhibits and portions of their filings under seal.

The materials included deposition transcripts, an errata sheet, a document-retention notice, discovery requests and responses, text messages, medical records, information about a nonparty patient, compensation and personal information about employees, and portions of the parties’ briefs, statement of material facts, and evidentiary submissions.

Legal standard

The court applied the three-part test for sealing court documents. First, it considered whether the material was a judicial document—material relevant to the court’s work and useful in the judicial process. Second, if the material was a judicial document, the court assessed the strength of the public-access presumption. Third, it balanced that presumption against competing interests, including privacy.

The court stated that materials filed in connection with a summary-judgment motion are judicial documents subject to a strong presumption of public access. Sealing is permitted only when specific findings show that it is essential to protect a higher value and that the proposed sealing is narrowly tailored. The parties’ conclusory statements did not adequately address this standard.

Rulings

The court denied Plaintiff’s letter motion to file the exhibits supporting her adverse-inference motion under seal because no party had rebutted, or attempted to rebut, the presumption of public access.

The court also denied without prejudice to renewal the parties’ request to file under seal entire exhibits and portions of the briefing, Rule 56.1 statement of material facts, and evidentiary submissions filed in connection with Defendants’ summary-judgment motion. The court stated that no document filed in connection with that motion would be unsealed at that time.

Permitted redactions and renewal

The court permitted the parties to seek sealing or redaction of:

- Names of patients and patients’ family members, but not medical conditions or information about patient care discussed as part of Defendants’ stated reason for terminating Plaintiff’s employment. - Specific compensation amounts of individual employees, but generally not the names or identifying job titles of Plaintiff’s alleged comparators. A comparator’s name could be sealed in a discussion stating that the comparator had the same salary as Plaintiff. - Identifying information about other employees accused of misconduct, but not the contents of the alleged misconduct. The court gave as an example redacting the position of “Dr. A” because it identified him. - Confidential personal information, such as telephone numbers and email addresses.

Any party seeking confidential treatment could file a renewed motion by July 14, 2023. The renewed motion had to identify the documents sought to be sealed or redacted, explain why competing considerations overcame the strong public-access presumption, and show that the proposed redactions were narrowly tailored. If no renewed request was filed, the documents then under seal would be unsealed.

The court also emphasized that permission to seal information in connection with the summary-judgment motions did not establish that the information could remain sealed at trial, where the public’s right of access to evidence is especially strong. Finally, the Clerk of Court was directed to unseal Dkt. 75.