S.M. v. The City of New York
- James Oetken
- 1:20-cv-05164
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In S.M. v. The City of New York, Judge Robert W. Lehrburger granted plaintiff’s request to keep Exhibits 3–6 under seal because they contain sensitive personal information.
S.M.’s privacy interests and public access to Exhibits 3–6 were affected; the exhibits were produced by the City of New York and Good Shepherd Services.
What happened
S.M. v. The City of New York involved S.M.’s request to file Exhibits 3–6 under seal in connection with a motion concerning a subpoena deposition. The exhibits were produced by the City of New York and Good Shepherd Services.
S.M. said the exhibits contained sensitive information about her physical and mental health, medical and academic records, harassment and abuse, and experiences as a minor in foster care. She argued that her privacy interests outweighed the public’s general right to view court documents.
Judge Robert W. Lehrburger granted the request. The order states that Exhibits 3–6 shall remain under seal.
The detailed version
- S.M. v. The City of New York · No. 1:20-cv-05164
- James Oetken
- May 21, 2024
Background
S.M. asked the court for permission to file Exhibits 3–6 under seal. The exhibits were attached to materials supporting S.M.’s motion to enforce Carla Petty’s compliance with a subpoena to attend a deposition. The documents had been produced by the City of New York and Good Shepherd Services.
Request to Seal
The request relied on a protective order governing confidential materials in the case. S.M.’s filing stated that the exhibits contained information about her physical and mental health, medical and academic records, harassment and abuse, and other sensitive personal information from the time she was a minor in the foster-care system. S.M. argued that these privacy interests outweighed the common-law presumption that judicial documents should be publicly accessible.
Ruling
Judge Robert W. Lehrburger granted the request. The order states: “Exhibits 3-6 shall remain under seal.” The order addressed only the sealing of those exhibits and did not decide the underlying dispute described in the filing.
Disposition
The request for leave to file Exhibits 3–6 under seal was granted, and the exhibits shall remain under seal.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.