Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Apr. 9, 2024

Swett Urquieta v. Bowe

Judge
Paul Engelmayer
Docket
1:24-cv-01379
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
2
Civil ProcedureFamily
In one sentence

In Swett Urquieta v. Bowe, Judge Engelmayer granted redactions protecting sensitive information about a nonparty child in proposed findings.

Who this affects

The petitioner, the respondent, and S.B.S., the nonparty child whose sensitive information was the subject of the requested redactions.

What happened

Swett Urquieta v. Bowe involved the petitioner’s request to redact parts of proposed findings of fact and legal conclusions filed with the court.

The petitioner said the redacted material concerned S.B.S., a young nonparty child, including private medical information. The petitioner also said some material came from documents marked confidential, and the respondent’s counsel joined the request.

Judge Engelmayer granted the request on April 9, 2024. The provided order does not identify the exact passages redacted or state whether any additional sealing relief was granted.

The detailed version

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

Case
Swett Urquieta v. Bowe · No. 1:24-cv-01379
Judge
Paul Engelmayer
Date
Apr. 9, 2024

Background The petitioner asked to redact portions of proposed findings of fact and legal conclusions. The request concerned information about S.B.S., described as a young child who was not a party to the proceeding.

Request and Positions The petitioner argued that the requested redactions involved S.B.S.’s privacy interests, including medical records. The petitioner also said that some of the material quoted documents marked confidential when produced by the parties. Counsel for the respondent stated that the respondent joined the application.

Ruling Judge Engelmayer granted the application. The provided text does not specify the exact redacted passages or state whether the court granted any relief beyond the requested redactions.

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.