Harris v. NYC Human Resources Administration

Opinion

KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP

601 Lexington Avenue New York, NY 10022 Mason E. Reynolds United States To Call Writer Directly: Facsimile: +1 212 909 3349 +1 212 446 4800 +1 212 446 4900 □□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□ www. kirkland.com

May 5, 2025 VIA CM/ECF Hon. John P. Cronan United States District Court Southern District of New York Daniel Patrick Moynihan United States Courthouse 500 Pearl Street New York, NY 10007

Re: Harris v. The City of New York, Docket No. 20-cv-2011 (JPC) Dear Judge Cronan: I write on behalf of Plaintiff Mary L. Harris pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 5.2(d) and Paragraphs 11 and 12 of the Protective Order (ECF No. 168) to request leave to file under seal redacted the May 12, 2025 Letter to the Court regarding Plaintiff’s availability to appear for a conference (the “Letter”) (ECF No. 224). Under the Protective Order, the parties may designate certain documents as “Highly Confidential Material — Trial Counsel’s Eyes Only” and restrict their dissemination and disclosure. See Protective Order § 1(c). Ifa party intends to file papers that incorporate “Highly Confidential Material,” that party must first make an application to the Court to file documents in redacted form or wholly under seal. /d. 9§ 11-12. The Letter contains information about Plaintiffs health information that may be reasonably characterized as requiring confidential treatment to protect an individual’s privacy, medical history, or disability. Plaintiff's request comports with Second Circuit case law, which permits judicial documents to remain under seal where legitimate privacy interests outweigh the “common law presumption of access.” Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga, 435 F.3d 110, 119-20 (2d Cir. 2006). The weight of the presumption is based on its value to “those monitoring the federal courts” and may be counterbalanced by “competing considerations.” /d. In balancing the weight of the presumption of access against countervailing factors, courts consider “the extent of the closure of

Austin Beijing Boston Brussels Chicago Dallas Frankfurt Hong Kong Houston London LosAngeles Miami Munich Paris Riyadh Salt Lake City Shanghai Washington, D.C.

KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP

Hon. John P. Cronan May 5, 2025 Page 2

sealing sought; the potential damage to [a party] from disclosure; the significance of the public interest at stake; the extent to which [a party] intend[s] to prove [its] case by relying on documents [it] seek[s] to withhold from public scrutiny; [and] whether the particular matter is integral or tangential to adjudication.” Standard Inv. Chartered Inc. v. Nat'l Ass’n of Sec. Dealers Inc., No. 07-cv-2014 (SWK), 2008 WL 199537, at *8 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 22, 2008). Here, Plaintiffs privacy interest in information relating to the above-referenced topics outweighs the presumption of access. For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff respectfully requests that her motion for leave to file the Letter under seal.

The request is granted. The Court finds that Plaintiff's privacy interest in the health information contained in the letter outweighs the public's interest in access. The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to close Docket Number 223. The Clerk Respectfully submitted of Court is also respectfully directed to close Docket Number > 217, which was resolved by the Order entered at Docket Number 219. /s/ Mason E. Reynolds KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP SO ORDERED. Bob Allen, P.C. Date: May 13, 2025 Mason E. Reynolds New York, New York Vincent-Alexandre Fournier James McLaughlin Vbf7D 601 Lexington Avenue e New York, NY 10022 JOHN P. CRONAN (212) 446-4800 United States District Judge bob.allen@kirkland.com mason.reynolds@kirkland.com vincent.fournier@kirkland.com james.mclaughlin@kirkland.com Attorneys for Mary L. Harris ce: All Counsel of Record via CM/ECF