Doe v. The Trustee of Columbia University in The City of New York et al

Filing 59

ORDER: On January 7, 2022, Plaintiff filed a memorandum of law in opposition to Defendants' motion to dismiss. See Doc. 58. Defendants requested via email that Plaintiff's opposition not be publicly filed on the docket until confidential information concerning other former Columbia students, who are non-parties to this litigation, is redacted. Specifically, Defendants wrote Plaintiff obtained some of this information from a document designated as confidential by Columbia pursuant to a protective order in another matter. As a result, the opposition was placed under seal by the Court pending resolution of Defendants' request. In response, Plaintiff emailed the Court to explain she did not rely on the confidential document i n writing her opposition, but instead relied on her own communications with the other student. Plaintiff wrote that this information is critical to her legal arguments and that she believes Defendants seek to redact this information only to conceal how they handled the case involving this other student. As redactions will not impact the Court's ability to review Plaintiff's legal claimsthe Court will still be able to view the unredacted version of Plaintiff's opposition-the parties are directed to submit a proposed public version of Plaintiff's memorandum, with appropriate redactions. IT IS SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Edgardo Ramos on 1/11/2022) (ama)

Case 1:21-cv-05839-ER Document 59 Filed 01/11/22 Page 1 of 2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
JANE DOE,
Pro Se Plaintiff,
v.
THE TRUSTEES OF COLUBMIA
UNIVERSITY IN THE CITY OF NEW
YORK, and KEVIN PITT, ALYSSA
ANZALONE-NEWMAN, KRISTIN
COLLADO, in their official capacities,

ORDER
21 Civ. 5839 (ER)

Defendants.

Ramos, D.J.:
On January 7, 2022, Plaintiff filed a memorandum of law in opposition to Defendants’
motion to dismiss. See Doc. 58. Defendants requested via email that Plaintiff’s opposition not
be publicly filed on the docket until confidential information concerning other former Columbia
students, who are non-parties to this litigation, is redacted. Specifically, Defendants wrote
Plaintiff obtained some of this information from a document designated as confidential by
Columbia pursuant to a protective order in another matter. As a result, the opposition was placed
under seal by the Court pending resolution of Defendants’ request.
In response, Plaintiff emailed the Court to explain she did not rely on the confidential
document in writing her opposition, but instead relied on her own communications with the other
student. Plaintiff wrote that this information is critical to her legal arguments and that she
believes Defendants seek to redact this information only to conceal how they handled the case
involving this other student.

Case 1:21-cv-05839-ER Document 59 Filed 01/11/22 Page 2 of 2

As redactions will not impact the Court’s ability to review Plaintiff’s legal claims—the
Court will still be able to view the unredacted version of Plaintiff’s opposition—the parties are
directed to submit a proposed public version of Plaintiff’s memorandum, with appropriate
redactions.
It is SO ORDERED.
Dated:

January 11, 2022
New York, New York
EDGARDO RAMOS, U.S.D.J.