Lenzo v. City of New York
- Jesse Furman
- 1:21-cv-00306
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
In Lenzo v. City of New York, Judge Furman denied Lenzo’s request to remove or redact the case from public records and denied fee-free appeal status.
Tory Lenzo, whose request to remove or redact the case from public records was denied; the City of New York was the defendant but was not the subject of a merits ruling in this order.
What happened
Lenzo v. City of New York concerned Tory Lenzo’s request to remove the federal case from public records or redact his name from online and courthouse searches.
The court denied the request because it was identical to an earlier request and for the reasons given in the court’s prior order. The court warned that additional motions seeking the same relief or deemed frivolous could result in sanctions.
Judge Jesse M. Furman also certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied Lenzo permission to appeal without paying the required fees.
The detailed version
- Lenzo v. City of New York · No. 1:21-cv-00306
- Jesse Furman
- Jan. 11, 2024
Background
Tory Lenzo submitted a letter asking the court to remove the case from public records or seal it and to redact his name from online public searches and other public records, including the physical courthouse. The Chief Judge referred the request to Judge Jesse M. Furman because the request concerned a case assigned to him.
Lenzo’s January 3, 2024 letter was identical to a letter he had submitted on September 13, 2023. The opinion describes Lenzo’s concerns about the public availability of the case and the reputational effects he believed that availability caused. The court did not resolve the factual allegations described in Lenzo’s letter.
Ruling
The court denied Lenzo’s request, substantially for the reasons stated in its September 14, 2023 order. The court cautioned Lenzo that sanctions may be imposed if he files additional frivolous motions or motions seeking the same relief.
The court also certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal from the order would not be taken in good faith and denied Lenzo permission to appeal without paying the required fees. The Clerk was directed to mail Lenzo a copy of the order.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.