Elias Feuer v. Lauren M. McFerran

Opinion

(Ue OO eS United States Attorney SE Southern District of New York 86 Chambers Street New York, New York 10007 September 30, 2025 VIA ECF The Honorable Jennifer E. Willis United States Magistrate Judge United States Courthouse 40 Foley Square New York, NY 10007 Re: — Elias Feuer v. Lauren M. McFerran, 22-cv-10433 (JHR) Dear Judge Willis: This Office represents the Government in the above-referenced employment discrimination action brought by pro se plaintiff Elias Feuer (‘Plaintiff’). On January 3, 2025, the Government sought leave to file redacted versions of six exhibits in connection with the Government’s motion for summary judgment. ECF No. 58. On September 19, 2025, the Court denied the Government’s motion to seal without prejudice and directed the Government to refile its request after it conformed other documents submitted in connection with its summary judgment motion with its proposed exhibit redactions. ECF No. 83. Accordingly, the Government respectfully: (1) renews its motion to seal six exhibits on the public docket; (2) requests that the Court strike certain filings from the docket (ECF Nos. 49.1, 62, and 75), as they contain information that is redacted in the sealed exhibits; and (3) grant the Government leave to refile docket numbers 49.1, 62, and 75 with redactions. First, as explained in the Government’s initial sealing request, the Government seeks to file six exhibits under seal due to the privacy interests of third parties who are mentioned in the documents. See ECF No. 58 (requesting that Exhibits G, H, I, J, K, and X to the Declaration of Rebecca Salk be filed under seal). The Government respectfully submits that sealing is appropriate in light of the privacy interests of third parties. See id. (citing Beverly Hills Teddy Bear Co. v. Best Brands Consumer Prod., Inc., No. 19 Civ. 3766 (GHW), 2020 WL 7706741, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 29, 2020) and Republic of Turkey v. Christie’s Inc., No. 17 Civ. 3086 (AJN), 2020 WL 7338074, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 11, 2020)). The six exhibits at issue contain sensitive information of innocent third parties, including observations from sitting ALJs about their resumes, writing samples, work history, and personal character. If the information in the exhibits is made publicly available, it could put the innocent third parties at a disadvantage when applying for future jobs or result in public embarrassment. See United States v. Amodeo, 71 F.3d 1044, 1050-51 (2d Cir. 1995) (noting that “embarrassing conduct with no public ramifications” and similar matters “weigh more heavily against access than conduct affecting a substantial portion of the public”). Plaintiff previously consented to this sealing request. Second, the Government has re-reviewed its prior filings that were submitted in connection with its motion for summary judgment and opposition to Plaintiffs motion for summary judgment. The Government has identified three documents that contain information that should be redacted

to conform with its sealing request: (1) the Joint Statement of Undisputed Facts, ECF No. 49.1; (2) the Government’s Local Rule 56.1 Statement, ECF No. 62; and (3) the Government’s Response to Plaintiffs Local Rule 56.1 Statement, ECF No. 75.' The Government respectfully requests that the Court therefore strike those filings from the docket and grant the Government leave to file those documents with limited redactions that are consistent with the redactions to its six exhibits. Pursuant to the Court’s Individual Rules of Practice in Civil Cases, the Government has submitted a declaration that attaches the exhibits and the above-referenced filings with proposed redactions. I thank the Court for its consideration of this application.

Respectfully, JAY CLAYTON Acting United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York By: /s/ Rebecca Salk REBECCA SALK Assistant United States Attorney 86 Chambers Street, Third Floor New York, NY 10007 Tel: (212) 637-2614 Email: □□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□

ce: Elias Feuer, pro se 975 Park Avenue New York, NY 10028 feuer.elias@gmail.com Defendant's motion to seal is GRANTED. The Court strikes Dkt. (VIA ECF) Nos. 49-1, 62, and 75 from the docket and GRAN TS Defendant leave to refile those three documents to conform with Defendant's sealing request. SO ORDERED.

UANNIFER E. WILLIS United States Magistrate Judge October 1, 2025

' Although the Court notes that Docket No. 61 also contains information that is redacted in Defendant’s sealed exhibits, the Government has not identified any information that requires redaction in that document.