Doolittle v. Bloomberg L.P.
- Rochon
- 1:22-cv-09136
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In Doolittle v. Bloomberg L.P., Judge Rochon granted Mark Crumpton’s request to seal filings containing sensitive medical information.
Mark Crumpton, whose sensitive medical information appears in the filings, and members of the public seeking access to those filings.
What happened
In Doolittle v. Bloomberg L.P., defendant Mark Crumpton asked to file unredacted versions of several documents under seal because they contained his sensitive medical information. The documents had initially been filed in redacted form.
The court found that privacy interests in medical records outweighed the general presumption that court filings should be publicly accessible. It granted the request, directed that the specified filings remain under seal, and directed the clerk to close the sealing motion.
Judge Jennifer L. Rochon issued the order. The ruling concerned only access to these filings and did not decide the underlying claims.
The detailed version
- Doolittle v. Bloomberg L.P. · No. 1:22-cv-09136
- Rochon
- Apr. 22, 2024
Background
Defendant Mark Crumpton asked the court for permission to file unredacted versions of documents under seal. The documents included a memorandum supporting his motion for a protective order and declarations from Mamatha Gadarla, Edward Vecchione, Steve Crumpton, and Anna Aguilar. They had been filed in redacted form and contained sensitive medical information about Mr. Crumpton.
Court’s reasoning
The court recognized a common-law presumption that the public may access judicial documents, but explained that this right is not absolute. Courts may balance that presumption against competing interests. The court identified a strong privacy interest in keeping medical records confidential and found that sealing the unredacted memorandum and exhibits was appropriate here.
Ruling
The court granted Mr. Crumpton’s request for leave to file the unredacted documents under seal. It directed the clerk to close the motion at ECF No. 65 and to maintain ECF Nos. 66 through 70 under seal. The order addressed the confidentiality of the filings and did not resolve the underlying dispute.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.