Keesh v. Quick
- Philip Halpern
- 7:19-cv-08942
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Keesh v. Franco, Judge Halpern granted Keesh’s request to redact unrelated medical information from a pretrial transcript.
Plaintiff Tyheem Keesh’s medical privacy is protected by keeping the unredacted transcript under seal, while the public retains access to the redacted transcript.
What happened
In Keesh v. Franco, the plaintiff asked the court to redact portions of a transcript from a pretrial conference because they discussed his medical treatment. The defendant did not oppose the request.
The requested redactions covered information the plaintiff said was sensitive, private, and unrelated to the claims or defenses. The court considered the general presumption that judicial documents should be publicly available, along with the strong privacy interest in medical information.
Judge Philip M. Halpern granted the application. The unredacted transcript will be filed under seal, while the redacted version will remain publicly available.
The detailed version
- Keesh v. Quick · No. 7:19-cv-08942
- Philip Halpern
- July 31, 2023
Background
Plaintiff Tyheem Keesh asked the court to require redactions from the transcript of a June 29, 2023 pretrial conference before the transcript became available electronically to the public. The proposed redactions covered statements concerning Keesh’s medical treatment. The opinion states that Defendant did not oppose the request.
Court’s Analysis
The court recognized a general presumption favoring public access to judicial documents. It also recognized that people have significant privacy interests in their medical information. The court noted that courts in the Southern District of New York regularly allow medical information to be sealed, particularly when the information is not relevant to the claims or defenses in the case.
Ruling
The court granted the application. The unredacted version of the transcript will be docketed under seal, and the redacted version will remain publicly filed. The ruling concerns access to transcript information and does not decide the underlying claims or defenses.
Note on the Caption
The supplied case name identifies the matter as “Keesh v. Quick,” but the opinion text’s “RE” line identifies it as “Keesh v. Franco.” This summary uses the caption appearing in the opinion text.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.