Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Sept. 7, 2023

Mercer v. VIACOMCBS/PARAMOUNT

Judge
Lorna Schofield
Docket
1:22-cv-06322
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
3
Civil ProcedurePro Se
In one sentence

In Mercer v. ViacomCBS/Paramount, Judge Schofield granted the defendant’s request to file medical information in redacted and sealed versions.

Who this affects

The order affected Amirah Mercer, ViacomCBS/Paramount, the defendant’s counsel, and access to court filings containing or discussing Mercer’s medical information.

What happened

Mercer v. ViacomCBS/Paramount involved the defendant’s request to redact personal medical information from its reply and two exhibits supporting its motion to dismiss. Plaintiff Amirah Mercer was representing herself.

The court found that medical records carry a strong privacy interest that outweighed the public-access concern in this instance. It approved redacted versions of the reply and exhibits, required unredacted versions to remain under seal, and limited access to specified people.

Judge Lorna G. Schofield granted the request, closed the motion at Docket 57, and directed the clerk to keep Docket Nos. 59 and 60 under seal. The order did not decide the motion to dismiss or the underlying claims.

The detailed version

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

Case
Mercer v. VIACOMCBS/PARAMOUNT · No. 1:22-cv-06322
Judge
Lorna Schofield
Date
Sept. 7, 2023

Background

Defendant ViacomCBS/Paramount, now known as Paramount Global, asked the court to accept redacted versions of its reply memorandum supporting its motion to dismiss and two exhibits. The materials included a work-from-home request completed by Plaintiff Amirah Mercer’s medical provider and an email discussing information shared by the provider. The defendant stated that the materials could contain Mercer’s personal medical information. Mercer was proceeding without a lawyer.

Court’s Analysis

The court recognized a common-law right of public access to judicial documents but explained that the right is not absolute. Courts must balance that presumption against competing considerations. The court found that medical records carry a strong privacy interest in confidentiality and concluded that redacted versions of the reply and Exhibits 1 and 3 were appropriate, with unredacted versions filed under seal.

Ruling

The court granted the defendant’s request. It directed the clerk to close the motion at Docket No. 57 and maintain Docket Nos. 59 and 60 under seal. The clerk was directed to allow access to the sealed materials to the people listed in Exhibit A: Mercer, the defendant, Marjorie Kulak, and counsel for the defendant. The clerk was also directed to mail the order and specified docket materials to Mercer. This order addressed filing access and confidentiality; it did not rule on the motion to dismiss or the merits of the underlying dispute.

The authoritative version

Read the full 3-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.