P. v. New York City Department of Education
- Lorna Schofield
- 1:23-cv-06651
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In A.P. and C.P. v. New York City Department of Education, Judge Schofield temporarily sealed specified filings while awaiting a response to plaintiffs’ privacy motion.
A.P. and C.P., the New York City Department of Education, and C.P., whose identifying, medical, and educational information appeared in the specified filings.
What happened
In A.P. and C.P. v. New York City Department of Education, the plaintiffs asked the court to seal filings containing records from two administrative hearings under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act and this lawsuit. They said the filings included sensitive identifying, medical, and educational information about C.P., a child with a disability.
The plaintiffs argued that federal privacy laws and the closed nature of the underlying administrative proceedings supported sealing the records. They also said that redacting the information would be burdensome and might not protect C.P.’s identity.
Judge Lorna Schofield ordered the Clerk to place the specified filings under seal while the court considered the motion, and directed the defendant to respond by April 1, 2024. The opinion does not state a final ruling on the sealing request.
The detailed version
- P. v. New York City Department of Education · No. 1:23-cv-06651
- Lorna Schofield
- Mar. 25, 2024
Background
A.P. and C.P., individually and on behalf of C.P., a child with a disability, sought attorneys’ fees, costs, and expenses for legal work performed in two administrative hearings under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act and in this federal action. Their attorney filed a letter motion asking the court to seal specified submissions filed by the New York City Department of Education.
Arguments for Sealing
The plaintiffs asserted that the record included hearing transcripts, exhibits, medical records, and educational records containing identifying information about C.P. and information about C.P.’s disability and educational needs. They cited Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 5.2(a), the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, and the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act as grounds for protecting the information.
The plaintiffs also argued that records recounting the underlying administrative proceedings should be treated as confidential because those proceedings are presumptively closed to the public. They further asserted that redacting the records would be burdensome because they covered hundreds of pages and would not necessarily prevent identification of C.P. from information remaining in the documents.
Court’s Action
The court directed the defendant to respond to the motion by April 1, 2024. Judge Lorna G. Schofield ordered the Clerk to place Docket Entries 41 through 58 and 67-1 under seal, while allowing the parties to retain access to them, during the court’s consideration of the motion. The text does not state that the court finally granted or denied the motion to seal.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.