Shim-Larkin v. City of New York

Filing 633

ORDER re: 631 Letter filed by City of New York. The defendant requested, in a letter dated May 12, 2020, Docket Entry No. 631, that it be permitted to redact "highly sensitive information" from a document, before disclosing the do cument to the plaintiff, because the defendant wishes to keep the information to be redacted confidential. The plaintiff opposed the request, in a letter dated May 12, 2020, Docket Entry No. 632. A protective order, Docket Entry No.64, was iss ued by the Court to safeguard the exchange of confidential information by the parties to this action. The defendant acknowledges the existence of the protective order, and does not claim that the order fails to accomplish what the defendant seeks through the May 12, 2020 request: the ability to keep confidential "highly sensitive information" exchanged by the parties to this action. In the absence of any claim by the defendant that the protective order does not allow for the exch ange of confidential information by the parties to this action, granting the defendant's request is not warranted. Therefore, the defendant's request is denied. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Magistrate Judge Kevin Nathaniel Fox on 5/13/2020) (va)

Case 1:16-cv-06099-AJN-KNF Document 633 Filed 05/13/20 Page 1 of 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
--------------------------------------------------------------------X
HEENA SHIM-LARKIN,
:
:
Plaintiff,
:
:
-against:
:
:
CITY OF NEW YORK,
:
:
Defendant.
:
--------------------------------------------------------------------X
KEVIN NATHANIEL FOX
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

ORDER
16 CV 6099 (AJN) (KNF)

The defendant requested, in a letter dated May 12, 2020, Docket Entry No. 631, that it be
permitted to redact “highly sensitive information” from a document, before disclosing the document
to the plaintiff, because the defendant wishes to keep the information to be redacted confidential.
The plaintiff opposed the request, in a letter dated May 12, 2020, Docket Entry No. 632.
A protective order, Docket Entry No.64, was issued by the Court to safeguard the exchange
of confidential information by the parties to this action. The defendant acknowledges the existence of
the protective order, and does not claim that the order fails to accomplish what the defendant seeks
through the May 12, 2020 request: the ability to keep confidential “highly sensitive information”
exchanged by the parties to this action. In the absence of any claim by the defendant that the
protective order does not allow for the exchange of confidential information by the parties to this
action, granting the defendant’s request is not warranted. Therefore, the defendant’s request is
denied.
Dated: New York, New York
May 13, 2020

SO ORDERED: