Sabic-El-Rayess v. Tchrs. Coll., Columbia Univ.

• Court: District Court, S.D. New York
• Decided: October 1, 2025
• Docket: 1:24-cv-02891
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

anrorda i Sanford Heisler e isler Sharp McKnight, LLP State Street, 37th Fl harp NewYork, NY10004 . Telephone: (646) 402-56 cKnight Fax: (646) 4oo-n6nt mee www.sanfordheisler.com Alok Nadig, Senior Litigation Counsel (646) 768-7059 anadig @sanfordheisler.com New York | Washington, DC | San Francisco | Palo Alto | Nashville | San Diego September 30, 2025 VIA ELECTRONIC FILING Re: □ Sabic-El-Rayess v. Tchrs. Coll., Columbia Univ., No. 1:24-cv-02891-JMF (S.D.N.Y.) Dear Judge Furman: Plaintiff Dr. Amra Sabic-El-Rayess submits this letter in response to Defendant Teachers College, Columbia University’s request to seal Exhibits C and D of Defendant’s Motion to Strike, see Dkt. Nos. 127-3, 127-4, and in support of Plaintiff's Motion to Seal Exhibits A through E and G of her response to Defendant’s Motion to Strike. Defendant’s Exhibit C is a redline generated between Dr. Nathan Alleman’s 09/15/2025 expert report and his 09/24/2025 supplemental report. See Dkt. No. 127-3. Defendant’s Exhibit D contains (1) a redline between Dr. Alleman’s 09/15/2025 report and his 09/26/2025 report and (2) a redline between Dr. Alleman’s 09/24/2025 report and his 09/26/2025 report. See Dkt. No. 127-4. Plaintiff's Exhibits A through E are documents Defendant produced in discovery as “confidential” and that Defendant has confirmed it wants filed under seal.! And Plaintiff’s Exhibit G is a clean version of Dr. Alleman’s 09/26/2025 supplemental report. “The Second Circuit has articulated a three-step process for determining whether documents should be placed under seal.” Fernandez v. City of New York, 457 F. Supp. 3d 364, 399 (S.D.N.Y. 2020). “First, a court must determine whether the presumption of access attaches. A presumption of access attaches to any document that is a ‘judicial document’—i.e., an ‘item .. . relevant to the performance of the judicial function and useful in the judicial process.’” /d. (quoting Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga, 435 F.3d 110, 115 (2d Cir. 2006)). Second, “[w]hen the document at issue is a ‘judicial document,’ . . . the court must then determine the weight of the presumption of access.” /d at 400. “Finally, after determining the weight of the presumption of access, the court must ‘balance competing considerations against it[,]” mcluding, but not limited to, “‘the danger of impairing law enforcement or judicial efficiency’ and ‘the privacy interests of those resisting disclosure.’” /d. (quoting Lugosch, 435 F.2d at 120). Applying this standard, this Court should determine that Defendant’s Exhibit C, Defendant’s Exhibit D, and Plaintiff's Exhibit G were all properly filed under seal. Defendant’s Exhibit C is not a “judicial document,” because it is irrelevant to the disposition of Defendant’s Motion to Strike for the reasons set forth in Plaintiff's Response to Defendant’s Motion. In short, Defendant’s Exhibit C is a redline between Dr. Alleman’s 09/15/2025 report and 09/24/2025 report

' Plaintiff has informed Defendant that, pursuant to this Court’s Individual Rule #7(C)(i), Defendant must file, within three business days, a letter explaining the need to seal Plaintiff?s Exhibits A through E.

Page 2 of 2

that is irrelevant because Plaintiff does not seek to introduce Dr. Alleman’s 09/24/2025 report. In addition, the privacy interests of Ansley Erickson, Na Lor, Rajashi Ghosh, and Patricia Hewlin counsel in favor of sealing Defendant’s Exhibits C and D (redlines showing changes made between the 09/26/2025 report and prior versions) and Plaintiff's Exhibit G (a clean version of the 09/26/2025 report). Dr. Alleman’s report contains an in-depth comparison of Plaintiff's experience and credentials as measured against those of Plaintiffs alleged comparators, who are Dr. Erickson, Dr. Lor, Dr. Ghosh, and Dr. Hewlin. Defendant’s Exhibits C and D and Plaintiff's Exhibit G should be kept under seal to avoid revealing sensitive information about non-parties’ educational and professional backgrounds to the general public. See In re SunEdison, Inc. Secs. Litig., Nos. 16- md-2742 (PKC) & 16-cv-7917 (PKC), 2019 WL 126069, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 7, 2019) (“The privacy interests of ‘innocent third parties . . . should weigh heavily’ when balancing the presumption of disclosure.”) (quoting United States v. Amodeo, 71 F.3d 1044, 1050 (2d Cir. 1995)); United States v. Wey, 256 F. Supp. 3d 355, 411 (S.D.N.Y. 2017) (“The relevant materials reflect sensitive . .. educational, and other personal information pertaining to non-parties, and the Court finds that the privacy interests of those non-parties outweigh any public interest in disclosure... .”) (citing Lugosch, 435 F.3d at 124). Plaintiff therefore requests that Defendant’s Exhibit C, see Dkt. No. 127-3, Defendant’s Exhibit D, see Dkt. No. 127-4, and Plaintiff's Exhibits A through E and G remain filed under seal. Respectfully submitted, /s/ Alok Nadig ALOK NADIG DAVID SANFORD MICHAEL PALMER CAROLIN GUENTERT MIRANDA KATZ SANFORD HEISLER SHARP McKNIGHT, LLP 17 State Street, 37" Floor New York, New York 10004 Telephone: (646) 402-5650 anadig@sanfordheisler.com dsanford@sanfordheisler.com mpalmer@sanfordheisler.com cguentert@sanfordheisler.com mkatz@sanfordheisler.com Attorneys for Plaintiff Dr. Amra Sabic-El-Rayess Plaintiff's motion to seal is granted temporarily. The Court will assess whether to keep the materials at is: in Plaintiff's motion as well as those at issue in Defendant's motion, ECF No. 126, sealed or redacted whe deciding the underlying motion. The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate ECF Nos. 126, 133. WG