Harte v. Pace University

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK -----------------------------------------------------------------X WENDY A. HARTE,

Plaintiff, ORDER

-against- 22-CV-3820 (JAV) (JW)

PACE UNIVERSITY, ET AL.,

Defendants. -----------------------------------------------------------------X JENNIFER E. WILLIS, United States Magistrate Judge: The Court is receipt of two motions from plaintiff Wendy Harte (“Plaintiff”). Plaintiff first seeks an order waiving “any transcript fees associated with all in-person hearings, and telephonic conferences that have taken place to the present day.” Dkt. No. 131. This request goes beyond the privileges granted those proceeding in forma pauperis. For that reason, Plaintiff’s request is DENIED. Plaintiff also seeks an order “limit[ing] public access” to “personal information such as [her] address or financial information.” Dkt. No. 132. “It is well established that the submissions of a pro se litigant must be construed liberally and interpreted [‘]to raise the strongest arguments that they suggest.[‘]” Triestman v. Federal Bureau of Prisons, 470 F.3d 471, 474 (2d Cir. 2006) (collecting cases). The Court construes pro se Plaintiff’s request as a motion to seal. A motion to seal a document is done on a document-by-document basis through a three-part inquiry. See Olson v. Major League Baseball, 29 F.4th 59, 87-88 (2d Cir. 2022). Plaintiff’s request is bare, without a reference to specific documents and facts to support sealing those documents under the three-part inquiry. For that reason, Plaintiffs request is DENIED without prejudice. The Clerk of Court is respectfully requested to close Dkt. No. 131 and 132. SO ORDERED. DATED: New York, New York July 2, 2025 | W . My NNIFER E. WILLIS United States Magistrate Judge