Cornett v. Banks
- Lorna Schofield
- 1:23-cv-06893
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Cornett v. Banks, Judge Schofield granted plaintiffs’ motion to seal the administrative record because it contained sensitive, identifiable information about a minor.
The plaintiffs and their minor daughter, J.B., whose medical, educational, and identifying information appears in the administrative record; public access to that record is restricted.
What happened
In Cornett et al. v. Banks et al., the plaintiffs asked to file the case’s administrative record under seal. The defendants did not object.
The record included medical, educational, and other personally identifying information about the plaintiff and her minor daughter, J.B. The plaintiffs argued that sealing was necessary to protect J.B.’s privacy and that redacting the record would be impractical and make important documents difficult to understand.
The court granted the motion to seal, finding that the privacy interests were substantial and the public interest in accessing the information was relatively low. Judge Lorna G. Schofield directed the Clerk to keep Docket 22 under seal and close the motion at Docket 30.
The detailed version
- Cornett v. Banks · No. 1:23-cv-06893
- Lorna Schofield
- Feb. 2, 2024
Background
The plaintiffs asked the court for permission to file the certified administrative record under seal. The defendants did not object to the request. The record included transcripts, exhibits, educational information, medical diagnoses, and personally identifying information concerning the plaintiff and her minor daughter, J.B.
The request arose in an action involving the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, which concerns procedural protections related to the provision of a free appropriate public education. The plaintiffs argued that federal law protects the confidentiality of personal information and records concerning children with disabilities and their parents.
Court’s Analysis
The court explained that judicial documents generally carry a common-law presumption of public access, but that right is not absolute. Courts must balance public access against competing interests, including privacy interests. Sealing is permitted when specific findings show that it is necessary to protect an important interest and is narrowly tailored to do so.
The court found that the administrative record contained extensive confidential and personally identifying information about J.B., including particularly sensitive health and educational information. It determined that protecting this information was a compelling privacy interest. The court also concluded that the public interest in accessing the information was relatively low.
The plaintiffs had argued that redaction was not a practical alternative because the record exceeded 1,000 pages and contained confidential information throughout. They also argued that removing information about J.B.’s health, disabilities, and educational needs would make documents such as her individualized education plan difficult or impossible to understand. The court accepted sealing as the narrowly tailored way to protect privacy while keeping the record useful for evaluating the case.
Ruling
The court granted the plaintiffs’ motion to seal. Judge Lorna G. Schofield directed the Clerk of Court to maintain Docket 22 under seal and to close the motion at Docket 30.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.