D.C.G. v. New York City Department of Education
- John Cronan
- 1:23-cv-01337
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In D.C.G. v. New York City Department of Education, Judge Willis approved redactions, maintained one seal, and closed two motions.
The order affected plaintiffs D.C.G., D.G., and their child E.G., as well as the defendants, by governing public access to a court exhibit and protecting specified identifying and privileged information.
What happened
D.C.G. v. New York City Department of Education concerned a revised public version of a letter containing information identifying minor student E.G. and parent D.C.G., along with redactions made to protect defendants’ privileged information.
The court found the revised redactions sufficiently limited to balance privacy interests with the public’s right to access court records. It approved the redacted version, directed the Clerk to close the sealing motion while keeping another document sealed, and noted that a public version of the exhibit was available. The Clerk was also directed to close another motion because the court had addressed it in an earlier report and recommendation.
Judge Jennifer E. Willis issued the order on March 4, 2024.
The detailed version
- D.C.G. v. New York City Department of Education · No. 1:23-cv-01337
- John Cronan
- Mar. 4, 2024
Background
The court reviewed a revised proposed redacted version of a prior letter, filed at Dkt. No. 61. The document redacted identifying information about minor student E.G. and parent plaintiff D.C.G., as well as defendants’ privilege-related information. The opinion does not describe the underlying claims in the case.
Rulings
The court held that the revised redactions were sufficiently narrowly tailored to balance privacy interests against the presumption that court records should be publicly accessible. The court approved the proposed redacted version.
The Clerk of Court was directed to close the motion to seal at Dkt. No. 26 while maintaining the seal on Dkt. No. 31. The court noted that a public version of the exhibit at Dkt. No. 31-1 was available at Dkt. No. 61-1.
The court also directed the Clerk to close the motion at Dkt. No. 55 because the court had addressed the letter associated with that motion in its Report and Recommendation at Dkt. No. 58.
Disposition
The revised redacted filing was approved; the motion to seal at Dkt. No. 26 was closed while the seal on Dkt. No. 31 was maintained; and the motion at Dkt. No. 55 was closed.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.