Pickar v. Indiana Federal Community Defenders, Inc. et al

Filing 8

ORDER: In light of the foregoing, the Letter Motion to Seal is denied without prejudice to renewal by filing as described above by March 13, 2025. That said, pending Defendants' renewed application, the Clerk of Court is directed to temporarily limit viewing of the Complaint, ECF No. 1, on the docket to the Court and the parties. SO ORDERED. ( Motions due by 3/13/2025.) (Signed by Judge Jesse M. Furman on 3/7/2025) (tg)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
---------------------------------------------------------------------- X
:
JOSHUA PICKAR,
:
:
Plaintiff,
:
:
-v:
:
INDIANA FEDERAL COMMUNITY DEFENDERS,
:
INC., and MONICA FOSTER, ANGELA ELLEMAN,
:
SARA VARNER, & JEAN GILES in their official
:
capacities,
:
:
Defendants.
:
:
---------------------------------------------------------------------- X

25-CV-1353 (JMF)
ORDER

JESSE M. FURMAN, United States District Judge:
On February 14, 2025, Plaintiff Joshua Pickar filed a Complaint bringing claims against
his former employer, Indiana Federal Community Defenders, Inc., and several of its employees.
See ECF No. 1. On March 6, 2025, the Court received a letter by email from Defendants
requesting that the Complaint be sealed in its entirety or, alternatively, that it be made available
on the docket only in redacted form.
The Court’s Individual Rules and Practices in Civil Cases, available at https://nysd.
uscourts.gov/hon-jesse-m-furman, set out rules and procedures regarding requests to seal or
redact documents. See Rule 7. Those rules require, inter alia, parties to meet and confer with
opposing parties in order to narrow the scope of any proposed redactions and that requests to file
under seal be filed on the docket unless there is “good cause” not to do so. See Rule 7(C)(i), (iv).
Defendants are accordingly instructed to (1) confer with Plaintiff regarding the scope of their
proposed redactions, (2) file a letter motion on the docket seeking leave to file their Letter
Motion to Seal under seal, (2) file the Letter Motion to Seal on the docket in both unredacted and

redacted form, see Rule 7(C)(iii), (3) attach as an exhibit to the redacted version of the Letter
Motion to Seal a copy of the Complaint with highlighted proposed redactions. The Court notes
that it is inclined to approve the redactions proposed by Defendants in the Letter Motion sent by
email, but only to the extent that they would allow a reader to identify Defendants’ clients and/or
reveal confidential attorney-client communications. By contrast, the Court is not inclined to
redact Plaintiff’s allegations on the ground that they are untrue and will cast Defendants in a bad
light; if that rationale were valid, defendants would seek to seal complaints in nearly every case.
In light of the foregoing, the Letter Motion to Seal is denied without prejudice to renewal
by filing as described above by March 13, 2025. That said, pending Defendants’ renewed
application, the Clerk of Court is directed to temporarily limit viewing of the Complaint, ECF
No. 1, on the docket to the Court and the parties.
SO ORDERED.
Dated: March 7, 2025
New York, New York

__________________________________
JESSE M. FURMAN
United States District Judge

2