Rattray v. Cadavid
- Paul Gardephe
- 1:17-cv-08560
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Rattray v. Cadavid, Judge Gardephe denied defendants’ request to seal a disciplinary record without prejudice because they did not address public-access requirements.
The defendants, including the City of New York and Officer Jose Cadavid, whose request to seal the disciplinary record was denied without prejudice; the filing remained subject to the court’s public-access rules.
What happened
In Rattray v. Cadavid, defendants asked the court to seal a disciplinary record concerning Officer Jose Cadavid that had been filed with a declaration opposing motions in limine. They also asked the court to require future filings containing confidential information to be filed under seal.
Defendants argued that the record had been produced under a confidentiality and protective order and involved an NYPD personnel matter. They said the filing violated that order and the court’s filing rules, and that the record was not otherwise publicly available.
Judge Paul G. Gardephe denied the sealing motion without prejudice. He ruled that defendants had not explained how sealing complied with the required standard, which calls for narrowly tailored sealing consistent with the presumption of public access. He also stated that a confidentiality agreement or protective order, by itself, does not overcome that presumption. The clerk was directed to terminate the motion.
The detailed version
- Rattray v. Cadavid · No. 1:17-cv-08560
- Paul Gardephe
- Aug. 24, 2023
Background
Defendants moved to seal Docket Entry No. 265-1 and to require future filings containing confidential information to be filed under seal. The filing contained a one-page Central Personnel Index record concerning Officer Jose Cadavid and a 2017 off-duty incident. The record had been produced during discovery under a confidentiality and protective order.
Defendants said the record was marked confidential and that its public filing violated the protective order and the court’s Individual Rule of Practice II.B. They also argued that the repeal of New York General Municipal Law § 50-a did not eliminate the need for confidential treatment of this particular record. Defendants asserted that the record was not otherwise publicly available and relied on the protective order and decisions approving confidentiality for NYPD personnel and disciplinary records.
Court’s analysis
The court’s Individual Rule of Practice II.B. requires any sealing or redaction of a court filing to be narrowly tailored to the purpose supporting it and consistent with the presumption that judicial documents should be publicly accessible. The rule also states that the parties’ consent or a confidentiality agreement, standing alone, generally does not overcome that presumption.
Ruling
Judge Gardephe denied defendants’ sealing motion without prejudice. The court held that defendants had not explained how sealing Officer Cadavid’s disciplinary record satisfied the public-access standard. The court also rejected reliance solely on the protective order as a basis for sealing. The clerk was directed to terminate the motion pending at Docket No. 268.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.