Doe v. Black
- Clarke
- 1:23-cv-06418
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Doe v. Black, Judge Clarke ordered the parties to discuss proposed redactions and set deadlines for resolving a request to seal filings.
Jane Doe and Leon Black, whose proposed redactions to the motion for sanctions and related submissions remained unresolved; the public-access interests concerning those court filings were also implicated.
What happened
In Doe v. Black, Plaintiff Jane Doe asked the Southern District of New York to seal a partially redacted motion for sanctions and related filings. Defendant Leon Black had publicly filed the motion on September 20, 2023.
Doe proposed additional redactions in an emergency application filed the next day. Black argued that the additional redactions should be denied. The court noted that judicial documents are generally presumed to be publicly accessible and referred the parties to the standard described in a cited appellate decision.
The court did not decide whether the proposed redactions were proper. Judge Jessica G. L. Clarke ordered the parties to meet and discuss the redactions by October 12, 2023, and set deadlines for joint or opposing letters to be filed under seal while the request remained pending.
The detailed version
- Doe v. Black · No. 1:23-cv-06418
- Clarke
- Oct. 5, 2023
Background
On September 20, 2023, Defendant Leon Black publicly filed a partially redacted motion for sanctions. On September 21, Plaintiff Jane Doe filed an emergency application asking the court to seal that motion and related submissions, with additional proposed redactions.
Parties’ Positions
Doe sought the additional redactions. Black argued that the court should deny them. The order states that the parties were required to consider the presumption that judicial documents are open to the public and the standard described in Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga, 435 F.3d 110 (2d Cir. 2006).
Court’s Directions
The court did not grant or deny the sealing request in this order. Instead, it directed the parties to meet and confer by October 12, 2023. If they agreed on redactions consistent with the applicable standard, they were to file a joint letter by October 16, 2023, explaining the basis for the redactions and attaching a proposed order requiring Black to file redacted versions of the motion and related submissions. If they disagreed, Doe was to file a letter explaining her position by October 16, and Black was to reply by October 23. The letters were to be filed under seal pending resolution of the motion, and any letter was limited to five pages.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.