Discrimination Lawsuit Against N.Y. City Official Can't Be Totally Sealed at Plaintiff's Behest

From Doe v. City of New York, decided today by Judge Gregory Woods (S.D.N.Y.):

One distinguishing facet of the American legal system is its commitment to public access to the trial process. This legacy of "open justice" is as old as America itself. The plaintiff in this action asks that the Court deviate from that legacy and to permit her to litigate her case under seal in complete secrecy. Because the plaintiff has not overcome the strong presumption to public access that attaches to judicial documents—including her complaint and the existence of the case itself—her motion to seal the case is DENIED….

In her complaint, the plaintiff asserts claims of discrimination, failure to accommodate, and retaliation under the Americans with Disabilities Act, as well as a series of claims under New York State and New York City law. In the complaint, the plaintiff describes her status as a victim of domestic violence, and asserts that the defendants failed, among other things, "to address the harassment stemming from [her] domestic violence victim status." And she describes certain of her health conditions—principally her "anxiety-triggered acid reflux," which, she asserts, the defendants failed to accommodate.

The complaint contains a number of redactions. Those redactions obscure the identity of the office for which the plaintiff worked, and her job position and responsibilities. The redactions also protect the identity of one of the actors who allegedly discriminated against her—namely, the elected public official who the plaintiff wishes to be known only as "Sealed Defendant 2." …

[P]laintiff [also] argues that she should be permitted to pursue this litigation under seal in its entirety. She contends that public litigation of the case will further expose sensitive details about her life: "[I]f this case is not permitted to be filed completely under seal, there is a substantial risk of further harm to Ms. Doe by exposing sensitive details to the public, mirroring the very violations at the lawsuit's core—where Defendants are accused of, among other things, improperly disseminating Ms. Doe's domestic violence status." …

[Total sealing:] The plaintiff has failed to meet her burden to show that this case as a whole should be sealed. "[S]ealing an entire case file is a last resort." …  The plaintiff is seeking to shield from the public everything about this case—including all future decisions by the Court, and presumably, should it reach that point, its trial. The public cannot evaluate the case without having any awareness of its proceedings…. The Court is empathetic to [plaintiff's] concerns, but they do not justify permitting her to litigate her case in secret—as a special exception to the many other plaintiffs who pursue their discrimination and disability cases in the public eye.^.

[Redaction:] The plaintiff has redacted from the complaint information that (1) identifies two of the defendants, including their names on the caption of the case, and (2) identifies her place of work. The plaintiff has not made a sufficiently substantial showing to justify sealing that information in the complaint….

The information that the plaintiff seeks to redact … has very substantial weight. It is important for this purpose for the public to have access to the identity of the defendants. That is particularly so here because the defendants are a governmental entity and an elected representative. The public has a substantial interest in alleged misconduct by such defendants. And awareness of the identity of the defendants has substantial value to those monitoring the federal courts to ensure that such defendants receive equal treatment under the law. Therefore, the weight of the presumption is high.

Finally, the plaintiff has not identified countervailing interests with sufficient weight to overcome the presumption of public access to that information. She has proffered few specific facts to support her request; she relies largely on generalized concerns regarding her privacy and the potential impact on her of disclosure of the case as a whole. The Court recognizes the plaintiff's privacy interests, and that the allegations in this case involve sensitive, personal matters. And the Court has considered that the disclosure of the identity of the defendants that she has named in this case is likely to enhance the attention on her case.

The Court is not at this point on its own initiative reexamining Judge Koeltl's decision to permit the plaintiff to litigate this case under a pseudonym, which safeguards her privacy to a meaningful extent. {The Court is not revisiting this decision on its own initiative at this point, but it may do so on motion or at a later stage of the case.} At the same time, the Court recognizes that by identifying her employer, and place of work, it is more likely that a researcher would be able to ascertain her identity….

The effect of granting the plaintiff's motion in this context would be not only to protect the plaintiff's privacy interests, but also the defendants from public exposure regarding their alleged misconduct. A reasonable balance of the competing interests of the public in this case and its proceedings and the plaintiff's privacy interests is struck by permitting the plaintiff to continue to maintain the action under a pseudonym at this time, while rejecting her other redactions to the complaint….

Because the plaintiff has not rebutted the presumption of public access, her motion to seal this case in its entirety is denied. Moreover, her request to seal the names of two of the defendants is denied, and the Court rejects the redactions to the complaint that obscure the place of her work and the alleged conduct by her employer. The plaintiff must file an amended complaint naming those defendants and omitting those redactions no later than July 24, 2024. The plaintiff may continue to use a pseudonym to identify herself in that filing.

The Court authorized the plaintiff to file a motion to seal the case. But it did not authorize the plaintiff to file that motion under seal. Accordingly, the Court expects to issue a separate order directing the Clerk of Court to make the documents filed on the docket at Dkt. No. 6 visible to the public on July 26, 2024. To the extent that the plaintiff wishes to propose targeted redactions to those submissions, she must do so no later than July 24, 2024….