Wood et al v. Mutual Redevelopment Houses, Inc. et al

Filing 332

ORDER denying without prejudice to renewal 328 Letter Motion to Seal. Accordingly, Plaintiffs' opposition papers shall be filed on the public docket, with the exception of Exhibit 13, pages WF000019021947; Exhibit 20; Exhibit 25; and Exhibit 26, pages D0779810827 and D0082107012, which shall be filed under seal. Defendants' application to unseal its motion papers at ECF No. 328 is DENIED without prejudice to renewal. Plaintiffs' request to file a surreply at ECF N o. 331 is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. By August 13, 2021, Plaintiffs shall file any surreply, not to exceed 20 pages total, including all exhibits and attachments. No extensions will be granted. If Plaintiffs fail to meet this deadli ne, they will not be permitted to file a surreply. If Plaintiffs fail to comply with the page limitations, the Court will only consider the first 20 pages of their submission. The Clerk of Court is directed to mail a copy of this order to Plaintiffs pro se. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Analisa Torres on 8/3/2021) (va) Transmission to Docket Assistant Clerk for processing.

Case 1:14-cv-07535-AT-DCF Document 332 Filed 08/03/21 Page 1 of 2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
TZVEE WOOD and ANDREA MALESTER,

USDC SDNY
DOCUMENT
ELECTRONICALLY FILED
DOC #: _________________
DATE FILED: 8/3/2021

Plaintiffs,
-againstMUTUAL REDEVELOPMENT HOUSES, INC., et al.,

14 Civ. 7535 (AT) (DCF)
ORDER

Defendants.
ANALISA TORRES, District Judge:
The Court has reviewed the parties’ letters at ECF Nos. 327–31.
On March 15, 2021, the Court permitted Plaintiffs to “redact . . . confidential financial
information, personally identifiable information, and medical information” from the
publicly-filed version of their opposition papers. ECF No. 309 (emphasis added). On July 9,
2021, the Court received an e-mail from the Office of Pro Se Litigation, stating that Plaintiffs
indicated that some portions of their opposition to Defendants’ motion for summary judgment
should be filed under seal. For example, Plaintiffs attached the declaration of Andrea Malester
and designated the entire document as “SEALED.”
On July 12, 2021, the Court clarified that Plaintiffs never requested leave to file their
submissions under seal and that the Court never granted Plaintiffs leave to file their opposition
papers under seal. ECF No. 324. The Court also cautioned Plaintiffs that “[f]ailure to comply
with this order [to redact their opposition papers] will result in Plaintiffs’ opposition papers being
filed on the public docket.” Id. The Court gave Plaintiffs until July 19, 2021, to redact their
submissions. Id.
By letter dated July 20, 2021, Plaintiffs argue that the Court’s July 12, 2021 order “did
not provide a reasonable amount of time for Plaintiffs to reprocess the submission[.]” ECF No.
327 at 2. However, Plaintiffs received a clear directive on March 15, 2021, that their
submissions could contain redactions. ECF No. 309. Therefore, Plaintiffs have had more than
four months to prepare and file redacted versions of their opposition papers. As of August 3,
2021, Plaintiffs have not filed redacted versions of their opposition papers on the public docket.
On July 19, 2021, the Court granted Defendants’ request to seal Exhibit 13, pages
WF00001902–1947; Exhibit 20; Exhibit 25; and Exhibit 26, pages D07798–10827 and
D00821–07012 of Plaintiffs’ opposition papers, because the documents contain highly personal
information. ECF No. 326.
Accordingly, Plaintiffs’ opposition papers shall be filed on the public docket, with the
exception of Exhibit 13, pages WF00001902–1947; Exhibit 20; Exhibit 25; and Exhibit 26,
pages D07798–10827 and D00821–07012, which shall be filed under seal.

Case 1:14-cv-07535-AT-DCF Document 332 Filed 08/03/21 Page 2 of 2

Defendants’ application to unseal its motion papers at ECF No. 328 is DENIED without
prejudice to renewal.
Plaintiffs’ request to file a surreply at ECF No. 331 is GRANTED in part and DENIED in
part. By August 13, 2021, Plaintiffs shall file any surreply, not to exceed 20 pages total,
including all exhibits and attachments. No extensions will be granted. If Plaintiffs fail to meet
this deadline, they will not be permitted to file a surreply. If Plaintiffs fail to comply with the
page limitations, the Court will only consider the first 20 pages of their submission.
The Clerk of Court is directed to mail a copy of this order to Plaintiffs pro se.
SO ORDERED.
Dated: August 3, 2021
New York, New York

2