B.M. v. Gonzalez
- Valerie Caproni
- 1:22-cv-02658
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In B.M. v. Gonzalez, Judge Caproni granted redactions for Exhibit A but denied without prejudice sealing Exhibits B–D, requiring narrower redactions.
The plaintiff and the people whose names and medical information appeared in the discovery exhibits, as well as the defendants whose produced text messages were at issue.
What happened
B.M. v. Gonzalez concerns a request involving discovery materials that contained sensitive medical and identifying information about Z.O. and others. The opinion says the underlying case involves allegations that Z.O. died after defendants failed to provide appropriate care.
The plaintiff asked to redact the full names of Z.O. and B.M. from Exhibit A and to file Exhibits B through D under seal. The defendants consented, and the plaintiff did not ask to seal or redact the related discovery letter itself.
Judge Valerie Caproni granted the request as to Exhibit A but denied without prejudice the request as to Exhibits B through D. She directed the plaintiff to make more targeted redactions because the text messages were not confidential in their entirety.
The detailed version
- B.M. v. Gonzalez · No. 1:22-cv-02658
- Valerie Caproni
- Oct. 17, 2023
Background
The plaintiff asked for permission to protect information in exhibits submitted with a joint discovery letter. The request sought to redact the full names of Z.O. and B.M. from Exhibit A and to file Exhibits B through D under seal, meaning to keep those exhibits from public access on the court docket.
The letter states that the materials included sensitive medical information concerning Z.O.’s care and death. It also states that the exhibits included the full name of another person receiving care from the New York State Office for People with Developmental Disabilities. The materials had been marked confidential under the parties’ protective order. The defendants consented to the request.
Ruling
The court granted the application as to Exhibit A. The court denied without prejudice the application as to Exhibits B through D, meaning the request was not permanently barred from being renewed. The court directed the plaintiff to make more targeted redactions because the text messages were not confidential in their entirety. The court did not seal or redact the joint discovery letter itself under the request described in the opinion.
Disposition
The application was granted as to Exhibit A and denied without prejudice as to Exhibits B through D.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.