Dodd v. City University of New York

S.D. New York

Dodd v. City University of New York

DecidedNovember 25, 2019

Docket1:17-cv-09932

StatusUnknown

This text of Dodd v. City University of New York (Dodd v. City University of New York) 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

Dodd v. City University of New York, (S.D.N.Y. 2019).

Pincite

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ------------------------------------------------------------------------ X : LYNDA G. DODD, : : 17 Civ. 9932 (PAE) Plaintiff, : : ORDER -v- : : CITY UNIVERSITY OF NEW YORK, VINCENT : BOUDREAU, BRUCE CRONIN, PAUL : OCCHIOGROSSO, MARY ERINA DRISCOLL, KEVIN : FOSTER, JOHN KRINSKY, RAJAN MENON, and : VIVIEN TARTTER, : : Defendants. : : ------------------------------------------------------------------------ X

PAUL A. ENGELMAYER, District Judge: On November 22, 2019, plaintiff sent the Court a letter requesting permission to file, in connection with her opposition to defendants’ motion for summary judgment: (i) certain exhibits entirely under seal, (ii) certain exhibits and deposition transcripts both under seal and with redactions, and (iii) her memorandum of law and Rule 56.1 counterstatement of facts both under seal and with redactions. As to the first category of documents—the documents to be filed entirely under seal—the Court denies, without prejudice, plaintiff’s request. As plaintiff notes, “a strong presumption of access attaches” to these documents. Ashmore v. CGI Grp. Inc., 138 F. Supp. 3d 329, 351 (S.D.N.Y. 2015) (citation omitted). Upon review of the exhibits requested to be filed under seal, many, if not all, of the documents contain portions that could be publicly filed. For example, the document labeled Exhibit 29 contains an academic’s curriculum vitae, which appears to include entirely public information, followed by letters of evaluation, which contain information that might be properly redacted in this litigation. The Court accordingly directs plaintiff to make a good-faith effort to propose, via email, narrowly tailored redactions to the exhibits she sought to file entirely under seal by November

26, 2019. Once the Court reviews and approves of those proposed redactions, defendants may file the unredacted versions under seal and the redacted versions on ECF. As to the second and third categories of documents—the documents proposed to be filed with redactions—the Court has reviewed and approves of the proposed redactions. Plaintiff’s request with regard to those documents is therefore granted. SO ORDERED.

____________________________________ Paul A. Engelmayer United States District Judge Dated: November 25, 2019 New York, New York

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 : LYNDA G. DODD, : : 17 Civ. 9932 (PAE) Plaintiff, : : ORDER -v- : : CITY UNIVERSITY OF NEW YORK, VINCENT : BOUDREAU, BRUCE CRONIN, PAUL : OCCHIOGROSSO, MARY ERINA DRISCOLL, KEVIN : FOSTER, JOHN KRINSKY, RAJAN MENON, and : VIVIEN TARTTER, : : Defendants. : : ------------------------------------------------------------------------ X

PAUL A. ENGELMAYER, District Judge: On November 22, 2019, plaintiff sent the Court a letter requesting permission to file, in connection with her opposition to defendants’ motion for summary judgment: (i) certain exhibits entirely under seal, (ii) certain exhibits and deposition transcripts both under seal and with redactions, and (iii) her memorandum of law and Rule 56.1 counterstatement of facts both under seal and with redactions. As to the first category of documents—the documents to be filed entirely under seal—the Court denies, without prejudice, plaintiff’s request. As plaintiff notes, “a strong presumption of access attaches” to these documents. Ashmore v. CGI Grp. Inc., 138 F. Supp. 3d 329, 351 (S.D.N.Y. 2015) (citation omitted). Upon review of the exhibits requested to be filed under seal, many, if not all, of the documents contain portions that could be publicly filed. For example, the document labeled Exhibit 29 contains an academic’s curriculum vitae, which appears to include entirely public information, followed by letters of evaluation, which contain information that might be properly redacted in this litigation. The Court accordingly directs plaintiff to make a good-faith effort to propose, via email, narrowly tailored redactions to the exhibits she sought to file entirely under seal by November

26, 2019. Once the Court reviews and approves of those proposed redactions, defendants may file the unredacted versions under seal and the redacted versions on ECF. As to the second and third categories of documents—the documents proposed to be filed with redactions—the Court has reviewed and approves of the proposed redactions. Plaintiff’s request with regard to those documents is therefore granted. SO ORDERED.

____________________________________ Paul A. Engelmayer United States District Judge Dated: November 25, 2019 New York, New York

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Dodd v. City University of New York, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dodd-v-city-university-of-new-york-nysd-2019.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack