Louis v. New York Presbyterian Hospital

Filing 48

ORDER granting in part and denying in part 40 Letter Motion to Seal Defendant in this case filed a letter-motion at Dkt. No. 40 seeking leave to seal various exhibits. The Court having examined the exhibits in question and considered Defendan t's representations, the letter-motion for leave to seal is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. Defendant's request to file Exhibits E, F, and I under seal is DENIED in light of the presumption in favor of public access, which outweig hs any competing considerations of privacy with respect to those exhibits, in light of the information already placed in the public record by Plaintiff in his Complaint. Defendant is directed, within three days of the date of this Order, to fil e Exhibits E, F, and I on the public docket. Defendant's request to file all of Exhibit J under seal is DENIED because the exhibit contains both private medical information as well as general form language. The Clerk of Court is directed to TERMINATE Dkt. No. 40. (And as further set forth herein.) SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Margaret M. Garnett on 9/25/2024) (jca)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

9/25/2024

SONDEST LOUIS,
Plaintiff,
-againstNEW YORK PRESBYTERIAN HOSPITAL,

23-CV-02044 (MMG)
ORDER

Defendant.

MARGARET M. GARNETT, United States District Judge:
Defendant in this case filed a letter-motion at Dkt. No. 40 seeking leave to seal various
exhibits. The Court having examined the exhibits in question and considered Defendant’s
representations, the letter-motion for leave to seal is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN
PART.
Although “[t]he common law right of public access to judicial documents is firmly rooted
in our nation’s history,” this right is not absolute, and courts “must balance competing
considerations against” the presumption of access. Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga, 435
F.3d 110, 119–20 (2d Cir. 2006) (internal quotation marks omitted); 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.”). Defendant’s request to file Exhibits E, F, and I under
seal is DENIED in light of the presumption in favor of public access, which outweighs any
competing considerations of privacy with respect to those exhibits, in light of the information
already placed in the public record by Plaintiff in his Complaint. Defendant is directed, within
three days of the date of this Order, to file Exhibits E, F, and I on the public docket.
Defendant’s request to file all of Exhibit J under seal is DENIED because the exhibit
contains both private medical information as well as general form language. See Deide v. Day,
No. 23-cv-03954 (NSR) (VR), 2023 WL 8602879, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 11, 2023) (where
documents contained references to personal medical information and unrelated information,
“[s]ealing of the unrelated information would not be ‘narrowly tailored.’”). However, Defendant
should file Exhibit J in redacted form, with the handwritten portions of the Exhibit redacted,
within three days of the date of this Order. The Court finds that such narrowly tailored
redactions are necessary to protect Plaintiff’s private medical information. See, e.g., Robinson v.
De Niro, No. 19-cv-09156 (LJL) (KHP), 2022 WL 2712827, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. July 13, 2022).

The Clerk of Court is directed to TERMINATE Dkt. No. 40.
Dated: September 25, 2024
New York, New York
SO ORDERED.

MARGARET M. GARNETT
United States District Judge