Ingber et al v. New York University
Filing
66
ORDER granting 65 Letter Motion to Seal. Accordingly, the Court grants Plaintiffs' unopposed motion to file under seal the unredacted versions of the SAA Member #2 Declaration. The Court grants Plaintiffs' request to redact the portion s of the Ingber Declaration that contain information about the race, religion, ethnicity, nationality, or gender of the members of SAA. The Court denies Plaintiffs' request to redact the portions of the Ingber Declaration that contain informat ion about the numerosity of the membership of SAA. Plaintiffs shall submit to the Court and to counsel for Defendant a version of the Ingber Declaration with proposed redactions that comport with the parameters described in this order. Such proposed redactions shall be submitted no later than May 14, 2024. The Clerk of the Court shall close docket entry number 65. (Signed by Judge Loretta A. Preska on 5/7/2024) (rro)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
BELLA INGBER, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
No. 23-CV-10023 (LAP)
-against-
ORDER
NEW YORK UNIVERSITY,
Defendant.
LORETTA A. PRESKA, Senior United States District Judge:
The Court is in receipt of Plaintiffs’ unopposed letter
motion,
(see
dkt.
no. 65),
seeking
to
file
under
seal
the
unredacted version of the Declaration of Bella Ingber (the “Inger
Declaration”), (see dkt. no. 62), and the anonymous declaration of
a
member
identified
of
Students
by
Plaintiffs
Declaration”
and,
Against
as
together
Antisemitism,
“Member
with
“Declarations”), (see dkt. no. 63).
the
#2”
(the
Ingber
Inc.
“SAA
(“SAA”),
Member
Declaration,
#2
the
Plaintiffs filed each of the
Declarations in support of their Memorandum of Law in Opposition
to Defendant’s motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint.
(See dkt. no. 61 [“Pl. Opp. Br.”].)
Although the judicial documents for which Plaintiffs request
sealing carry a “strong presumption of [public] access,” sealing
is justified when a district court renders “specific, on-therecord findings that sealing is necessary to preserve higher
values” and the district court issues a sealing order “narrowly
1
tailored to achieve that aim.” Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga,
435 F.3d 110, 121, 124 (2d Cir. 2006).
In fashioning such a sealing order, the court must balance
competing considerations against the presumption of public access
that applies to judicial documents.
See id. at 120.
One such
competing interest, or higher value, the court must consider is
the privacy interest of those who would be affected by disclosure.
See id.
Plaintiffs
seek
to
redact
identifying
Member #2 from the SAA Member #2 Declaration.
information
about
Although the Court
may rely upon it as a judicial document, “the public will be able
to read and fully understand” the SAA Member #2 Declaration “even
with [the] identifying information redacted.”
2023
WL
2609315,
plaintiff’s
at *1-2
request
information
“involve[d]
and
to
redact
proceed
highly
(S.D.N.Y.
Mar.
sensitive
pseudonymously
sensitive
and
Doe v. N.Y. Univ.,
22,
2023)
personal
because
personal
(granting
identifying
the
case
matters”).
Specifically, the SAA Member #2 Declaration provides sufficient
unredacted information about Member #2’s personal involvement in
SAA to support Plaintiffs’ assertion that SAA has associational
standing to sue.
(See SAA Member #2 Declaration ¶¶ 2, 7-11; Pl.
Opp. Br. at 35.)
The
SAA
Member
#2
Declaration
also
contains
unredacted
information about specific incidents of antisemitic harassment
2
Member #2 asserts she experienced as a student in October and
November 2023, which incidents are undoubtedly “sensitive and
personal” in light of Member #2’s apparent fear of retaliation as
an “easily identifiable” “ethnic and religious Jew.”
See Doe,
2023 WL 2609315, at *2; (see also SAA Member #2 Declaration ¶¶ 35).
The
protection
of
such
sensitive
personal
identifying
information, including Member #2’s name, “legitimately counsel[s]
against disclosure of” the information Plaintiffs seek to redact.
See Doe, 2023 WL 2609315, at *2 (internal quotations and citations
omitted).
Plaintiffs have requested to redact only narrow portions of
the SAA Member #2 Declaration that contain personal identifying
information about Member #2.
Given the highly sensitive nature of
the personal identifying information as well as the content of the
remainder of the SAA Member #2 Declaration—which will provide the
public with sufficient information regarding Plaintiffs’ standing
arguments—the
Court
concludes
that
the
privacy
interests
of
Member #2 outweigh the public interest in the disclosure of the
redacted information.
Accordingly, the proposed redactions are
tailored narrowly enough to preserve Member #2’s privacy interests
without
jeopardizing
the
right
of
access
that
presumptively
applies to judicial documents.
The Court therefore grants the
motion
version
to
seal
Declaration.
the
unredacted
of
the
See Lugosch, 435 F.3d at 120, 124.
3
SAA
Member
#2
The
request
to
redact
certain
portions
Declaration presents a different analysis.
of
the
Ingber
The portions of the
Ingber Declaration that the public could use to identify members
of SAA by their race, religion, ethnicity, nationality, or gender
is of the same sensitive and personal nature that the Court has
described above with respect to the information to be redacted in
the SAA Member #2 Declaration.
personal
Plaintiffs
information
have
and
proposed
The protection of such sensitive
the
narrowly
warrants
such
tailored
limited
redaction
redaction
of
racial, religious, ethnic, nationality, or gender information in
the Ingber Declaration.
See id.
However, the Court denies Plaintiffs’ request to redact the
portions of the Ingber Declaration that pertain to the numerosity
and
the
extent
of
membership
of
SAA.
There
exists
an
“[i]nviolability of privacy in group association” that may “in
many circumstances be indispensable to preservation of freedom of
association” that is protected by the First Amendment.
Nat’l
Assoc. for the Advancement of Colored People v. Ala. ex rel.
Patterson, 357 U.S. 449, 462 (1958).
Amendment
interest,
courts
have
“long
Because of this First
recognized
that
an
organization can assert associational privacy rights on behalf of
its members.”
Am. Civ. Liberties Union v. Clapper, 785 F.3d 787,
802 (2d Cir. 2015). The risk that compelled disclosure would chill
the expression of an organization’s members, who “would reasonably
4
[be] prevent[ed] . . . from engaging in further speech and/or
association,” creates the constitutional basis for this privacy
right of organizations.
Citizens United v. Schneiderman, 882 F.3d
374, 381 (2d Cir. 2018).
On this basis, courts have held that the there is a qualified
privilege
against
“compelled
disclosure
of
an
association’s
members or sympathizers” and the “sources or uses of [its] funds,”
see Int’l Soc’y for Krishna Consciousness, Inc. v. Lee, 1985 WL
315, at *8 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 28, 1985) (collecting cases), as well as
“the names of an organization’s members, the names of campaign
contributors, the names of producers of political leaflets, or the
names of persons who circulate petitions,” Church of Am. Knights
of the Ku Klux Klan v. Kerik, 356 F.3d 197, 209 (2d Cir. 2004).
However, Plaintiffs have not provided, nor has the Court
found, any legal support for the proposition that confidential
information
“protected
by
th[is]
associational
privilege”
of
anonymity includes information about the numerosity or extent of
the organization’s membership.
(See dkt. no. 65 at 3.)
It is not
apparent to the Court why public access to the number of members,
rather than to the identities or identifying information of the
members
themselves,
creates
association
the
with
that
of
expression
or
prohibits.
See Schneiderman, 882 F.3d at 381.
5
SAA
risk
the
chilling
First
further
Amendment
The associational
privilege of anonymity does not extend to protect against the
disclosure of the size of an organization’s membership.
Accordingly, the Court grants Plaintiffs’ unopposed motion to
file under seal the unredacted versions of the SAA Member #2
Declaration.
The Court grants Plaintiffs’ request to redact the
portions of the Ingber Declaration that contain information about
the race, religion, ethnicity, nationality, or gender of the
members of SAA.
The Court denies Plaintiffs’ request to redact
the portions of the Ingber Declaration that contain information
about the numerosity of the membership of SAA.
Plaintiffs shall submit to the Court and to counsel for
Defendant
a
version
of
the
Ingber
Declaration
with
proposed
redactions that comport with the parameters described in this
order.
Such proposed redactions shall be submitted no later than
May 14, 2024.
The Clerk of the Court shall close docket entry number 65.
SO ORDERED.
Dated:
May 7, 2024
New York, New York
__________________________________
LORETTA A. PRESKA
Senior United States District Judge
6
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?