Baker v. The City of New York et al

Filing 135

ORDER granting 127 Letter Motion to Seal. Application GRANTED. Due to the sensitive personal nature contained therein, Plaintiff's medical record may be filed under seal. Evidence related to Plaintiff's criminal history shall be filed under seal pending resolution of Plaintiff's motion in limine regarding the admissibility of this evidence at trial. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Katherine Polk Failla on 6/28/21) (yv)

MEMO ENDORSED

June 25, 2021
VIA ECF
The Honorable Katherine Polk Failla
United States District Court
Southern District of New York
40 Foley Square, Room 2103
New York, NY 10007
RE:

Baker v. German, et al.,
No. 15 Civ. 07296 (KPF) (S.D.N.Y.)

Dear Judge Failla:
Pursuant to Section 9.B of Your Honor’s Individual Rules of Practice in Civil Cases, Plaintiff
respectfully seeks leave to file under seal (i) portions of the Memorandum of Law in Support of
Plaintiff’s Motion in Limine to Preclude Defendants from Introducing Certain Evidence Relating
to Plaintiff’s Medical Records and (ii) certain exhibits of the Declaration of Tansy Woan in
Support of Plaintiff’s Motions in Limine dated June 25, 2021, related to Plaintiff’s medical
records and criminal history.
As the Court is aware, the Second Circuit has recognized that the right of public access to judicial
documents is not absolute and “the court must balance competing considerations against it.” See
Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga, 435 F.3d 110, 119-20 (2d Cir. 2006). For instance,
documents may be sealed where “closure is essential to preserve higher values and is narrowly
tailored to serve that interest.” Id.; see also Nixon v. Warner Commc’ns., Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 599
(1978) (“[T]he decision as to access is one best left to the sound discretion of the trial court, a
discretion to be exercised in light of the relevant facts and circumstances of the particular case.”);
cf. Burke v. Glanz, No. 11-cv-720, 2013 WL 211096, at *4 (N.D. Okla. Jan. 18, 2013) (“Courts
should be wary of modifying a protective order where a party has complied with discovery in
reliance on the agreement.”).
First, Plaintiff respectfully requests that the Court protect his medical records from public
disclosure by allowing Plaintiff to file portions of his brief and the medical records under seal.
Courts in this district have recognized that a party’s privacy interests with respect to medical
records outweighs competing considerations of public access. See Gutierrez v. Dubois, No. 20
Civ. 2079 (PGG), 2020 WL 3072242, at *10 (S.D.N.Y. June 10, 2020) (granting motion to file
medical records under seal because the “presumption of access is outweighed here by [the party’s]
considerable privacy interest in his sensitive medical information”); United States v. Suarez, No.
16-cr-453 (RJS), 2020 WL 5513333, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 14, 2020) (similar). The proposed
redactions in Plaintiff’s brief are narrowly tailored to ensure that the public has access to the parts
material to Plaintiff’s position that the records be limited or excluded while protecting from
disclosure certain references that are highly sensitive. Because the medical records are unable to
be easily redacted in a form that is comprehensible, Plaintiff respectfully requests that the Court
allow Plaintiff to file them under seal. See Michelo v. Nat’l Collegiate Student Loan Trust 2007-

2, No. 18-CV-1781, 2021 WL 1637814, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 27, 2021) (ordering medical records
that could not “easily be redacted” to be kept under seal). Moreover, because the medical records
have been designated “Confidential” pursuant to the Stipulation of Confidentiality and Protective
Order due to Plaintiff’s privacy interests, Plaintiff respectfully requests that they not be disclosed
publicly. (See ECF 93 at 2-3.)
Second, Plaintiff respectfully requests that the Court protect against the disclosure of highly
sensitive information by allowing Plaintiff to file two documents related to his criminal history
under seal. By allowing Plaintiff to file the documents under seal, the Court would be protecting
from disclosure highly personal information that has little bearing on Plaintiff’s excessive force
claims while allowing access to the public regarding the pertinent portions of the documents in
Plaintiff’s legal brief that are unredacted. See Holiday Hosp. Franchising, LLC v. J&W Lodging,
LLC, No. 1:17-CV-01663-ELR, 2019 WL 3334614, at *10 (N.D. Ga. Mar. 7, 2019) (granting
motion to seal deposition testimony relating to party’s criminal history because “it was “highly
personal and has no relevance to the case.”). Moreover, because the two documents bear a high
risk of embarrassment, Plaintiff respectfully requests that they not be disclosed publicly. Seals v.
Mitchell, No. CV 04-3764 NJV, 2011 WL 1233650, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 30, 2011) (granting
motion to seal exhibits relating to criminal, mental health, and medical history to “protect Plaintiff
from embarrassment and because balancing the need for the public’s access . . . against Plaintiff’s
need for confidentiality weighs strongly in favor of sealing”).
In light of the foregoing and because these interests outweigh the right of public access, Plaintiff
respectfully requests that the Court seal his medical records and criminal history from public
disclosure.

Respectfully submitted,
By: /s/ Tansy Woan
Tansy Woan
Attorney for Plaintiff Michael
Smith-Baker

Application GRANTED. Due to the sensitive personal nature contained
therein, Plaintiff's medical record may be filed under seal. Evidence
related to Plaintiff's criminal history shall be filed under seal
pending resolution of Plaintiff's motion in limine regarding the
admissibility of this evidence at trial.
Dated:

June 28, 2021
New York New York

SO ORDERED.

2

HON. KATHERINE POLK FAILLA
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE