Moore v. Planned Parenthood Federation of America, Inc.
- Subramanian
- 1:22-cv-08899
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In Moore v. Planned Parenthood Federation of America, Inc., Judge Subramanian allowed sensitive medical filings to be sealed but required public redacted versions.
Nicole Moore, the defendants, and members of the public seeking access to the court filings were affected. Moore could file the specified materials under seal but had to provide public versions with limited redactions.
What happened
In Moore v. Planned Parenthood Federation of America, Inc., Nicole Moore asked to file under seal an expert report, her medical records, and deposition transcripts containing sensitive medical information. She planned to use them with a motion challenging the defendants’ expert testimony.
The defendants opposed the request, arguing that Moore’s medical history was relevant to the case. The court permitted the documents to be filed under seal.
Judge Arun Subramanian directed Moore to file public, redacted versions by May 7, 2024. The redactions were to be limited to sensitive medical information rather than covering every potentially private aspect of the filings.
The detailed version
- Moore v. Planned Parenthood Federation of America, Inc. · No. 1:22-cv-08899
- Subramanian
- Apr. 30, 2024
Background
Plaintiff Nicole Moore asked for permission to file certain materials under seal in connection with an anticipated motion to exclude testimony from the defendants’ expert witness, Dr. Steven A. Fayer. The proposed materials included Dr. Fayer’s amended expert report, medical records concerning Moore, and deposition transcripts relating to the report and his review of the records.
According to the request, the materials contained sensitive information about Moore’s physical and psychological treatment and diagnoses. The defendants opposed sealing on the ground that Moore’s medical history was “at issue” in the case.
Ruling
The court permitted the documents to be filed under seal. It also directed Moore to file redacted versions on the public docket by May 7, 2024. The court stated that redaction should be limited to sensitive medical information and should not cover every potentially private aspect of the filings.
This was a filing-access ruling; the provided text does not show a decision on the anticipated motion concerning the expert testimony or on the underlying claims.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.