The opinion
. Littler Mendelson, P.C.
| er 900 Third Avenue
New York, NY 10022.3298
Jean L. Schmidt
212.497.8486 direct
212.583.9600 main
646.417.7534 fax
jschmidt@littler.com
June 22, 2023
VIA ECF
The Honorable Paul G. Gardephe
United States District Judge
Thurgood Marshall
United States Courthouse
40 Foley Square
New York, NY 10007
Re: Guelda Brown v. Montefiore Medical Center, et al.
Case No. 1:18-cv-03861-PGG-KHP
Dear Judge Gardephe:
This firm represents the Defendants Montefiore Medical Center, Aretha Mack, Veronica Crute,
and Anthony Leung (“Montefiore Defendants”) in the above-referenced matter. On Friday, June
16, 2023, we were contacted by Your Honor’s Clerk and asked to file a complete copy of the
transcript of the deposition of Plaintiff Guelda Brown for the Court to review in connection with
the Montefiore Defendants’ pending motion for summary judgment (ECF Nos. 91-97).
To protect the confidentiality of documents and information regarding Plaintiff's medical
condition, certain portions of her deposition transcript were designated as confidential.
Consequently, we write in accordance with Section II.B of Your Honor’s Individual Rules of
Practice in Civil Cases to request that the Montefiore Defendants be permitted to file the
deposition transcript with certain portions redacted. The only portions of the deposition that
we propose be redacted are those portions which deal with Plaintiff's medical condition, and
which were marked “Confidential” per agreement of the parties.
In accordance with Your Honor’s Individual Rules, we are publicly filing the deposition with the
proposed redactions and electronically filing under seal a copy of the unredacted deposition
and with the redactions highlighted.
For the reasons set forth above, we respectfully request that the Court approve the redacted
filing of Plaintiff's deposition transcript.
littlar cam
Hon. Paul G. Gardephe
June 22, 2023
Page 2
We thank Your Honor for your consideration.
Respectfully submitted,
Jean L. Schmidt
Jean L. Schmidt
cc: Guelda Brown (via Fed-Ex)
MEMO ENDORSED:
As stated in this Court’s Individual Rules of Practice in Civil Cases, to be approved, any
redaction or sealing of a court filing must be narrowly tailored to serve whatever purpose
justifies the redaction or sealing and must be otherwise consistent with the presumption
in favor of public access to judicial documents. See, e.g., Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of
Onondaga, 435 F.3d 110, 119-20 (2d Cir. 2006). In general, the parties’ consent or the
fact that information is subject to a confidentiality agreement between litigants 1s not, by
itself, a valid basis to overcome the presumption in favor of public access to judicial
documents. See, e.g., In re Gen. Motors LLC Ignition Switch Litig., No. 14- MD-2543
(JMF), 2015 WL 4750774, at *4 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 11, 2015). While discussion of
Plaintiff's medical records, treatment, and diagnoses are proper subjects for redaction, the
parties must narrowly tailor their proposed redactions to this information, rather than
redact full pages of Plaintiff's deposition. Accordingly, Defendants’ motion to seal is
denied without prejudice. Any further motion to seal will be filed by July 19, 2023.
SO ORDERED.
oud & Hovdkppbe
Paul G. Gardephe
United States District Judge
Dated: July 12, 2023