Harris v. The City of New York
- Clarke
- 1:22-cv-01763
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In Harris v. City of New York, Judge Clarke granted a request to seal personal identifying information in a docket filing.
The defendants, the retired New York City Police Department member whose home address appeared in ECF No. 87, the parties, court personnel, and members of the public seeking access to that filing.
What happened
In Harris v. City of New York, a lawyer for the defendants asked the court to seal a home address belonging to a retired New York City Police Department member. The address appeared twice in ECF No. 87, which was described as an affidavit of service.
The court granted the request. It found that the interests supporting restricted filing outweighed the public’s general right to access court records. The court directed the clerk to seal ECF No. 87 and restrict access to the parties and court personnel.
Judge Jessica G. L. Clarke issued the order on October 16, 2023. The order concerns only sealing the identifying information in the docket and does not decide the underlying claims.
The detailed version
- Harris v. The City of New York · No. 1:22-cv-01763
- Clarke
- Oct. 16, 2023
Background
Counsel for the City of New York and the other defendants asked the court to seal personal identifying information in ECF No. 87. The information was a home address of a retired New York City Police Department member, and the address appeared twice in that filing. ECF No. 87 was described as an affidavit of service.
Court’s reasoning
The court applied the presumption that court filings should generally be available to the public. It concluded that the interests supporting filing the information under seal outweighed that presumption.
Ruling
The court granted the sealing request. It directed the clerk to seal ECF No. 87 and stated that access would be restricted to the parties and court personnel. The opinion’s text is visibly garbled around a separate reference to ECF No. 92, so this summary does not characterize any additional action concerning that filing.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.