Dubose v. SUNY Maritime College Office of Financial Aid

S.D. New York

Dubose v. SUNY Maritime College Office of Financial Aid

DecidedJanuary 6, 2025

Docket1:24-cv-05547

StatusUnknown

This text of Dubose v. SUNY Maritime College Office of Financial Aid (Dubose v. SUNY Maritime College Office of Financial Aid) 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

Dubose v. SUNY Maritime College Office of Financial Aid, (S.D.N.Y. 2025).

Pincite

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK MALCOLM DUBOSE, Plaintiff, Case No. 1:24-cv-05547 (JLR) -against- ORDER SUNY MARITIME COLLEGE OFFICE OF FINANCIAL AID et al., Defendants. JENNIFER L. ROCHON, United States District Judge: On December 19, 2024, Plaintiff filed his memorandum of law in opposition to defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint. Dkt 36. On December 23, 2024, Plaintiff filed a supplemental set of exhibits to accompany his memorandum, Dkt. 39, and a motion to allow all of the exhibits to be submitted under seal, Dkt. 38. Plaintiff's motion to seal the exhibits in support of his opposition to Defendants’ motion to dismiss is DENIED. On consideration of a motion to seal, the Court must determine (1) whether the document to be sealed is a “judicial document”; (2) the weight of the presumption of public access; and (3) whether there are countervailing considerations that may overcome this presumption. See generally Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga, 435 F.3d 110 (2d Cir. 2006). The exhibits to Plaintiff’s opposition to the motion to dismiss are judicial documents that are potentially relevant to this Court’s analysis of the motion to dismiss. Plaintiff has not pointed to any countervailing considerations sufficient to overcome the presumption of public access to judicial documents that would support the wholesale sealing of all of the exhibits, especially since several of the exhibits contain publicly available material and Plaintiff has already filed all of them publicly at Dkt. 39. If Plaintiff would like to propose discrete redactions that satisfy the Lugosch standard, the Court would consider those redactions. See, e.g., United States v. Avenatti, 550 F. Supp. 3d 36, 54-55 (S.D.N.Y. 2021) (denying request to seal judicial documents with defendant’s financial information but allowing defendant to propose narrow redactions). Dated: January 6, 2025 New York, New York SO ORDERED. Secale Riches 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 MALCOLM DUBOSE, Plaintiff, Case No. 1:24-cv-05547 (JLR) -against- ORDER SUNY MARITIME COLLEGE OFFICE OF FINANCIAL AID et al., Defendants. JENNIFER L. ROCHON, United States District Judge: On December 19, 2024, Plaintiff filed his memorandum of law in opposition to defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint. Dkt 36. On December 23, 2024, Plaintiff filed a supplemental set of exhibits to accompany his memorandum, Dkt. 39, and a motion to allow all of the exhibits to be submitted under seal, Dkt. 38. Plaintiff's motion to seal the exhibits in support of his opposition to Defendants’ motion to dismiss is DENIED. On consideration of a motion to seal, the Court must determine (1) whether the document to be sealed is a “judicial document”; (2) the weight of the presumption of public access; and (3) whether there are countervailing considerations that may overcome this presumption. See generally Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga, 435 F.3d 110 (2d Cir. 2006). The exhibits to Plaintiff’s opposition to the motion to dismiss are judicial documents that are potentially relevant to this Court’s analysis of the motion to dismiss. Plaintiff has not pointed to any countervailing considerations sufficient to overcome the presumption of public access to judicial documents that would support the wholesale sealing of all of the exhibits, especially since several of the exhibits contain publicly available material and Plaintiff has already filed all of them publicly at Dkt. 39. If Plaintiff would like to propose discrete redactions that satisfy the Lugosch standard, the Court would consider those redactions. See, e.g., United States v. Avenatti, 550 F. Supp. 3d 36, 54-55 (S.D.N.Y. 2021) (denying request to seal judicial documents with defendant’s financial information but allowing defendant to propose narrow redactions). Dated: January 6, 2025 New York, New York SO ORDERED. Secale Riches United States District Judge

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Dubose v. SUNY Maritime College Office of Financial Aid, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dubose-v-suny-maritime-college-office-of-financial-aid-nysd-2025.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack