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 approved redactions protecting a nonparty child’s sensitive personal information.

Who this affects

Respondent John Francis Bowe, the petitioners, and the nonparty child S.B.S.; the public docket is affected because portions of an exhibit list may be redacted.

What happened

Maria Elena Swett Urquieta v. John Francis Bowe involved a request to redact parts of Respondent Bowe’s exhibit list before it was filed publicly. The proposed redactions concerned highly personal information about the nonparty child S.B.S. and related to the grave-risk defense.

Bowe’s attorneys argued that the exhibit list was a court document presumed to be publicly accessible, but that the child’s privacy and safety interests justified limited redactions. The petitioners joined the request.

The court ordered the request, approving the proposed redactions. Judge Paul Engelmayer issued the order on April 9, 2024.

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

Respondent John Francis Bowe asked for permission to redact portions of his exhibit list before filing it on the public docket. The proposed redactions concerned highly personal information about S.B.S., a child who was identified as a nonparty, and information related to the grave-risk defense. The petitioners joined the application.

Parties’ Position

Bowe’s counsel acknowledged that the exhibit list was a judicial document subject to a presumption of public access. Counsel argued that countervailing privacy interests—particularly the protection of sensitive personal information involving a child—supported the requested redactions. The letter cited decisions allowing redaction of a child’s information to protect privacy and safety.

Ruling

The court marked the application “SO ORDERED” on April 9, 2024. The order therefore approved the requested redactions to the exhibit list. The opinion does not provide additional limits or conditions on the redactions.

Classification

This is a procedural order concerning access to and redaction of a court filing. It does not decide the underlying dispute or the grave-risk defense.

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.