Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Feb. 23, 2024

Alves Decastro v. Kavadia

Judge
Jesse Furman
Docket
1:12-cv-01386
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
2
Civil ProcedureFirst Amendment
In one sentence

In Alves Decastro v. Kavadia, Judge Furman denied Kavadia’s request to remove online reports or seal the case record.

Who this affects

Defendant Deepak Kavadia, whose request to remove online reports or seal the case record was denied; the ruling also preserved public access to the record.

What happened

In Alves Decastro v. Kavadia, Defendant Deepak Kavadia asked the court to remove online posts about the case from the New York Post’s website and several legal databases.

Kavadia said the posts were damaging his name and affecting his life and career. The court explained that ordering public reports removed would violate the First Amendment and that his embarrassment did not outweigh the strong presumption that court records should remain open to the public.

Judge Jesse M. Furman denied Kavadia’s request. The court also directed the Clerk to mail Kavadia a copy of the order.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
Alves Decastro v. Kavadia · No. 1:12-cv-01386
Judge
Jesse Furman
Date
Feb. 23, 2024

Background

On February 15, 2024, Defendant Deepak Kavadia submitted a letter asking the court to “remove [] posts” about this case from the New York Post’s website and from online legal databases, including Justia, eDiscovery Assistant, Casetext, and Leagle. Kavadia stated that the posts were damaging his name and affecting his life and career.

Court’s analysis

The court considered Kavadia’s request in two ways. First, to the extent he sought an order requiring public reports about the case to be removed from the Internet, the court held that such an order would violate the First Amendment. Second, to the extent he sought to seal the court record, the court found that request meritless. It explained that the information was already publicly available and that Kavadia’s embarrassment did not overcome the strong presumption favoring public access to court records.

Ruling

The court denied Kavadia’s request. It also directed the Clerk to mail Kavadia a copy of the order at the address stated in the opinion.

The authoritative version

Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.