Ingber v. New York University
- Loretta Preska
- 1:23-cv-10023
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 6
In Ingber v. New York University, Judge Preska sealed Member #2’s declaration, allowed some Ingber redactions, and denied redactions about the organization’s membership size.
The plaintiffs, New York University, Member #2, and members of Students Against Antisemitism, Inc. are affected by the court’s sealing and redaction rulings.
What happened
In Ingber v. New York University, the plaintiffs asked to file an unredacted declaration from Bella Ingber and an anonymous declaration from “Member #2” of Students Against Antisemitism, Inc. under seal, and to redact information from those declarations. The declarations supported the plaintiffs’ opposition to New York University’s motion to dismiss.
The court found that Member #2’s identifying information was highly sensitive and that the proposed redactions were narrow enough to protect privacy while preserving public access. It also allowed redactions in Ingber’s declaration concerning members’ race, religion, ethnicity, nationality, or gender. But it rejected redactions concerning the number and extent of the organization’s membership because the plaintiffs did not provide legal support for treating membership size as protected associational information.
Judge Loretta A. Preska granted the request to seal the unredacted Member #2 declaration, granted the request to redact the specified personal information in Ingber’s declaration, and denied the request to redact information about the organization’s membership size. She ordered the plaintiffs to submit a revised version of Ingber’s declaration by May 14, 2024, and directed the Clerk to close docket entry 65.
The detailed version
- Ingber v. New York University · No. 1:23-cv-10023
- Loretta Preska
- May 7, 2024
Background
The plaintiffs filed an unredacted declaration from Bella Ingber and an anonymous declaration from “Member #2,” a member of Students Against Antisemitism, Inc., in support of their opposition to New York University’s motion to dismiss the amended complaint. The plaintiffs filed an unopposed letter motion asking to file the unredacted Member #2 declaration under seal and to redact specified information from both declarations.
Legal standard
The court explained that judicial documents carry a strong presumption of public access. Sealing is permitted only when the court makes specific findings that sealing is necessary to protect a higher value, such as privacy, and limits the sealing or redactions to what is necessary.
Member #2 declaration
The court granted the motion to seal the unredacted Member #2 declaration. The declaration contained identifying information and descriptions of antisemitic harassment that Member #2 said she experienced as a student in October and November 2023. The court found that this information was sensitive and personal, particularly given Member #2’s apparent fear of retaliation and the possibility that she could be easily identified as an ethnic and religious Jew.
The court also found that the declaration contained enough unredacted information about Member #2’s personal involvement in Students Against Antisemitism, Inc. to support the plaintiffs’ assertion that the organization had associational standing to sue. The remaining redactions therefore protected Member #2’s privacy without preventing the public from understanding the plaintiffs’ standing arguments.
Ingber declaration
The court granted the request to redact portions of Ingber’s declaration that could identify members of Students Against Antisemitism, Inc. by race, religion, ethnicity, nationality, or gender. It found that this information was similarly sensitive and personal, and that the proposed redactions were narrowly tailored.
The court denied the request to redact information concerning the number and extent of the organization’s membership. The court discussed the First Amendment protection for freedom of association and the related qualified privilege against compelled disclosure of members’ identities and other identifying information. But it found that the plaintiffs had not provided legal support for extending that protection to the size of an organization’s membership. The court also found it was not apparent why disclosure of the number of members, as opposed to their identities or identifying information, would chill further expression or association.
Order
Judge Loretta A. Preska granted the plaintiffs’ unopposed motion to file the unredacted Member #2 declaration under seal. She granted the request to redact information about the race, religion, ethnicity, nationality, or gender of Students Against Antisemitism, Inc.’s members in the Ingber declaration, and denied the request to redact information about the number of members. The plaintiffs were ordered to submit a revised version of the Ingber declaration to the court and defense counsel by May 14, 2024. The Clerk was directed to close docket entry 65.
Read the full 6-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.