Asylum Seeker Advocacy Project v. Barr

S.D. New York

Asylum Seeker Advocacy Project v. Barr

DecidedJuly 17, 2019

Docket1:19-cv-06443

StatusUnknown

This text of Asylum Seeker Advocacy Project v. Barr (Asylum Seeker Advocacy Project v. Barr) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, S.D. New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Asylum Seeker Advocacy Project v. Barr, (S.D.N.Y. 2019).

Pincite

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ---------------------------------------------------------------------- X : ASYLUM SEEKER ADVOCACY PROJECT et al., : : Plaintiffs, : 19-CV-6443 (JMF) : -v- : MEMORANDUM OPINION : AND ORDER WILLIAM BARR et al., : : Defendants. : : ---------------------------------------------------------------------- X

JESSE M. FURMAN, United States District Judge: Rule 5.2(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides that, “[u]nless the court orders otherwise,” limitations on remote electronic access apply to actions or proceedings that “relat[e] to an order of removal, to relief from removal, or to immigration benefits or detention.” Because Plaintiffs in this case selected “Other Immigration Actions” as the nature of suit on their civil cover sheet, those limitations currently apply. See Docket No. 2. In the Court’s view, those limitations are unwarranted and inappropriate in this case for at least two reasons. First, given the nature of this case — namely, that it does not involve an individual order of removal or relate to the immigration benefits or detention of an individual — it is less likely to involve the sort of “sensitive information” that prompted the adoption of Rule 5.2(c). See Fed. R. Civ. P. 5.2 advisory committee notes. And to the extent that filings in the case do include sensitive information, the usual tools at the Court’s disposal — including redaction and sealing — should suffice. Second, given the nature of (and public interest in) the case, there is a particularly strong interest in promoting readily available public access to the record. See generally Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga, 435 F.3d 110, 119-20 (2d Cir. 2006). For these reasons, the Clerk of Court is directed to change the nature of suit code to No. 890, “Other Statutory Actions,” thereby lifting the limitations on remote electronic access to the docket imposed by Rule 5.2(c).

SO ORDERED. Dated: July 17, 2019 New York, New York JESSE MSFURMAN United States District Judge

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ---------------------------------------------------------------------- X : ASYLUM SEEKER ADVOCACY PROJECT et al., : : Plaintiffs, : 19-CV-6443 (JMF) : -v- : MEMORANDUM OPINION : AND ORDER WILLIAM BARR et al., : : Defendants. : : ---------------------------------------------------------------------- X

JESSE M. FURMAN, United States District Judge: Rule 5.2(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides that, “[u]nless the court orders otherwise,” limitations on remote electronic access apply to actions or proceedings that “relat[e] to an order of removal, to relief from removal, or to immigration benefits or detention.” Because Plaintiffs in this case selected “Other Immigration Actions” as the nature of suit on their civil cover sheet, those limitations currently apply. See Docket No. 2. In the Court’s view, those limitations are unwarranted and inappropriate in this case for at least two reasons. First, given the nature of this case — namely, that it does not involve an individual order of removal or relate to the immigration benefits or detention of an individual — it is less likely to involve the sort of “sensitive information” that prompted the adoption of Rule 5.2(c). See Fed. R. Civ. P. 5.2 advisory committee notes. And to the extent that filings in the case do include sensitive information, the usual tools at the Court’s disposal — including redaction and sealing — should suffice. Second, given the nature of (and public interest in) the case, there is a particularly strong interest in promoting readily available public access to the record. See generally Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga, 435 F.3d 110, 119-20 (2d Cir. 2006). For these reasons, the Clerk of Court is directed to change the nature of suit code to No. 890, “Other Statutory Actions,” thereby lifting the limitations on remote electronic access to the docket imposed by Rule 5.2(c).

SO ORDERED. Dated: July 17, 2019 New York, New York JESSE MSFURMAN United States District Judge

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Asylum Seeker Advocacy Project v. Barr, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/asylum-seeker-advocacy-project-v-barr-nysd-2019.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack