Rizk et al v. City of New York et al

Filing 146

ORDER: For the reasons explained in the accompanying order, the Court grants in part and denies in part Plaintiffs' motion to seal Dr. Korte's treatment records previously filed as ECF Nos. 121 and 128 . The Court shall designate those documents as sealed on the docket. Ordered by Judge Hector Gonzalez on 7/22/2022. (Herrmann, Brendan)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
JACQUELINE RIZK and SAMIR
GONSALVES,
Plaintiffs,

ORDER
14-CV-06434 (HG)

v.
POLICE OFFICER FIRDAUS MEHIRDEL,
TAX REG # 950309, and POLICE OFFICER
DANNY LEE, TAX REG # 950736,
Defendants.
Plaintiffs have filed a motion seeking to seal two documents previously filed in this case,
ECF Nos. 121 and 128, which contain the treatment notes that Plaintiffs’ expert witness, Dr.
Korte, took during his treatment of Plaintiff Jacqueline Rizk. See ECF No. 145. Plaintiffs also
seek to seal any trial evidence containing those treatment notes. Id. The Court grants Plaintiffs’
motion in part for the reasons explained below.
To determine whether Dr. Korte’s treatment notes may be sealed, the Court must first
determine whether they are “judicial documents” “subject to a presumptive right of public
access, whether on common law or First Amendment grounds.” United States v. HSBC Bank
USA, N.A., 863 F.3d 125, 134 (2d Cir. 2017). If the treatment notes are judicial documents, then
the Court “must determine the weight of that presumption” of access and “balance competing
considerations against it” such as “the privacy interests of those resisting disclosure.” Lugosch v.
Pyramid Co. of Onondaga, 435 F.3d 110, 119–20 (2d Cir. 2006).
The parties filed Dr. Korte’s treatment notes in connection with Defendants’ motion to
compel their production, so that Defendants could depose Dr. Korte about them. See ECF No.
119. “[T]he presumption of public access in filings submitted in connection with discovery

disputes or motions in limine is generally somewhat lower than the presumption applied to
material introduced at trial, or in connection with dispositive motions such as motions for
dismissal or summary judgment.” Brown v. Maxwell, 929 F.3d 41, 50 (2d Cir. 2019). However,
Ms. Rizk’s right to privacy with respect to her personal medical information “outweigh[s] the
public’s qualified right of access” to the treatment notes, despite their status as judicial
documents. Dawson v. Merck & Co., Inc., No. 12-cv-1876, 2021 WL 242148, at *11 (E.D.N.Y.
Jan. 24, 2021). In fact, “[c]ourts in this Circuit routinely seal medical records . . . to protect the
plaintiff’s privacy interest in those records.” Toolasprashad v. Toolasprashad, No. 21-cv-4672,
2021 WL 4949121, at *3 (E.D.N.Y. Oct. 25, 2021).
Plaintiffs’ motion also seeks to keep under seal any of Dr. Korte’s records “introduced
into evidence at trial.” ECF No. 145 at 2. None of Dr. Korte’s treatment notes were introduced
into evidence. To the extent Plaintiffs are asking the Court to seal any of the trial testimony
about Dr. Korte’s treatment of Ms. Rizk, the Court denies that request, because such testimony
was conducted in open court and may have been relevant to the jury’s verdict.
For the reasons explained above, the Court grants in part and denies in part Plaintiffs’
motion to seal Dr. Korte’s treatment records previously filed as ECF Nos. 121 and 128. The
Court shall designate those documents as sealed on the docket.
SO ORDERED.
/s/ Hector Gonzalez
HECTOR GONZALEZ
United States District Judge

Dated: Brooklyn, New York
July 22, 2022

2

.