Einhorn v. Renaissance Economic Development Corporation
- Katharine Parker
- 1:22-cv-08436
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In Einhorn v. Renaissance Economic Development Corporation, Judge Parker partly granted and partly denied requests to seal a transcript and redact an earlier order.
The plaintiff and Renaissance Economic Development Corporation; the transcript may contain redactions of sensitive information, while the earlier court order will not be redacted.
What happened
In Einhorn v. Renaissance Economic Development Corporation, the plaintiff asked the court to seal a conference transcript because it discussed medical history. The plaintiff also asked the court to redact part of an earlier order, and Renaissance Economic Development Corporation agreed to the transcript request.
The court would not seal the entire transcript. Instead, it allowed the plaintiff to have sensitive information redacted through the court’s stated transcript-redaction process. The court denied the request to redact its earlier order because the order did not contain sensitive information about the plaintiff.
Judge Katharine H. Parker therefore granted the requests in part and denied them in part.
The detailed version
- Einhorn v. Renaissance Economic Development Corporation · No. 1:22-cv-08436
- Katharine Parker
- Dec. 11, 2023
Background
The plaintiff asked the court to seal a transcript of a recent conference because it contained discussion of the plaintiff’s medical history. The plaintiff also asked the court to reissue an earlier order with the last sentence of its first paragraph redacted or partly redacted. Renaissance Economic Development Corporation consented to the requested sealing.
Ruling
The court granted in part and denied in part the requests. It would not seal the entire transcript, but it would permit redaction of the sensitive information. The order explains that, when the transcript becomes available, a notice will appear on the docket. The plaintiff must then file a notice of intent to request redaction and separately work with the transcriber to have the relevant information redacted.
The court denied the request to redact its own earlier order. It found that the order contained no sensitive information about the plaintiff. Instead, the order discussed a category of discovery that was not permitted and did not address whether documents in that category existed. The court concluded that sealing was therefore not warranted under the cited public-access standard.
Disposition
Judge Katharine H. Parker granted in part and denied in part the request to seal and redact.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.