Dodd v. City University of New York et al

Filing 109

ORDER: On November 22, 2019, plaintiff sent the Court a letter requesting permission to file, in connection with her opposition to defendants' motion for summary judgment: (i) certain exhibits entirely under seal, (ii) certain exhibits and depos ition transcripts both under seal and with redactions, and (iii) her memorandum of law and Rule 56.1 counterstatement of facts both under seal and with redactions. As to the first category of documents-the documents to be filed entirely under seal-th e Court denies, without prejudice, plaintiff's request, as further set forth in this order. The Court accordingly directs plaintiff to make a good-faith effort to propose, via email, narrowly tailored redactions to the exhibits she sought to fil e entirely under seal by November 26, 2019. Once the Court reviews and approves of those proposed redactions, defendants may file the unredacted versions under seal and the redacted versions on ECF. As to the second and third categories of documents- the documents proposed to be filed with redactions-the Court has reviewed and approves of the proposed redactions. Plaintiff's request with regard to those documents is therefore granted. (Signed by Judge Paul A. Engelmayer on 11/25/2019) (jwh)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
------------------------------------------------------------------------X
:
LYNDA G. DODD,
:
:
Plaintiff,
:
:
-v:
:
CITY UNIVERSITY OF NEW YORK, VINCENT
:
BOUDREAU, BRUCE CRONIN, PAUL
:
OCCHIOGROSSO, MARY ERINA DRISCOLL, KEVIN :
FOSTER, JOHN KRINSKY, RAJAN MENON, and
:
VIVIEN TARTTER,
:
:
Defendants.
:
:
------------------------------------------------------------------------X

17 Civ. 9932 (PAE)
ORDER

PAUL A. ENGELMAYER, District Judge:
On November 22, 2019, plaintiff sent the Court a letter requesting permission to file, in
connection with her opposition to defendants’ motion for summary judgment: (i) certain exhibits
entirely under seal, (ii) certain exhibits and deposition transcripts both under seal and with
redactions, and (iii) her memorandum of law and Rule 56.1 counterstatement of facts both under
seal and with redactions.
As to the first category of documents—the documents to be filed entirely under seal—the
Court denies, without prejudice, plaintiff’s request. As plaintiff notes, “a strong presumption of
access attaches” to these documents. Ashmore v. CGI Grp. Inc., 138 F. Supp. 3d 329, 351
(S.D.N.Y. 2015) (citation omitted). Upon review of the exhibits requested to be filed under seal,
many, if not all, of the documents contain portions that could be publicly filed. For example, the
document labeled Exhibit 29 contains an academic’s curriculum vitae, which appears to include

entirely public information, followed by letters of evaluation, which contain information that
might be properly redacted in this litigation.
The Court accordingly directs plaintiff to make a good-faith effort to propose, via email,
narrowly tailored redactions to the exhibits she sought to file entirely under seal by November
26, 2019. Once the Court reviews and approves of those proposed redactions, defendants may
file the unredacted versions under seal and the redacted versions on ECF.
As to the second and third categories of documents—the documents proposed to be filed
with redactions—the Court has reviewed and approves of the proposed redactions. Plaintiff’s
request with regard to those documents is therefore granted.
SO ORDERED.

PaJA.�

____________________________________
Paul A. Engelmayer
United States District Judge

Dated: November 25, 2019
New York, New York

2