Starkes v. United States

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

QUENTIN STARKES, Petitioner, : 20 Civ. 00265 (LGS) -against- ORDER UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent. : LORNA G. SCHOFIELD, District Judge: WHEREAS, on July 1, 2021, Petitioner filed a motion to redact and file under seal an unredacted version of his reply memorandum of law in support of his motion pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. Dkt. No. 33. It is hereby ORDERED that, Petitioner’s motion to sealis GRANTED. The unredacted version of the reply at Docket No. 34 will remain sealed, and by July 7, 2021, Petitioner shall publicly file a redacted version of his reply. Only the parties and individuals identified in the attached Appendix will have access. Although “[t]he common law right of public access to judicial documents is firmly rooted in our nation’s history,” this right is not absolute, and courts “must balance competing considerations against” the presumption of access. Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga, 435 F.3d 110, 119-20 (2d Cir. 2006) (internal quotation marks omitted); see also Nixon v. Warner Commce’ns., Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 599 (1978) C‘[T]he decision as to access is one best left to the sound discretion of the trial court, a discretion to be exercised in light of the relevant facts and circumstances of the particular case.”). Filing the above-referenced document in redacted form is necessary to prevent the unauthorized dissemination of Petitioner’s personal information, including protected health information. The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to close the motion at Docket No. 33. Dated: July 2, 2021 □ New York, New York LORNA G. SCHOFIEL

Appendix Pursuant to Your Honor’s Individual Rule I.D.3, this appendix identifies all parties and attorneys of record who should have access to the sealed documents. AUSA Alexandra Rothman (by ECF)