Case 1:22-cv-08779-PGG Document 17 Filed 10/28/22 Page 1 of 2
`
`DIRECT DIAL
`DIRECT EMAIL
`
`212-763-0883
`rkaplan@kaplanhecker.com
`
`October 17, 2022
`
`VIA ECF
`
`Hon. Paul G. Gardephe
`United States District Court
`Southern District of New York
`40 Foley Square
`New York, NY 10007
`
`Re: Doe v. Roe, No. 1:22-cv-08779 (PGG)
`
`Dear Judge Gardephe:
`
`We represent Plaintiff Jane Doe in the above-captioned case. On Friday, October 14, 2022,
`Plaintiff Jane Doe filed a Complaint against Defendant John Roe. On Monday, October 17, 2022,
`Ms. Doe filed a Motion for Leave to Proceed Under a Pseudonym and for a Protective Order (the
`“Motion”). In connection with that Motion, and consistent with her desire to maintain her anonymity
`while pursuing claims against Dr. Roe, Ms. Doe filed an Exhibit to that Motion under seal, which is
`a letter from her treating therapist. Pursuant to Your Honor’s Individual Rules of Practice in Civil
`Cases § II, we respectfully request that Your Honor order Exhibit A to the Motion be filed under
`seal pursuant to Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga, 435 F.3d 110 (2d Cir. 2006).
`
`The Second Circuit recognizes “[t]he common law right of public access to judicial
`documents” and “the public and the press[’s] . . . ‘qualified First Amendment right to . . . access
`certain judicial documents.’” Id. at 119-20 (quoting Hartford Courant Co. v. Pellegrino, 380 F.3d
`83, 91 (2d Cir. 2004)). It has also articulated a three-step process that courts follow to determine
`whether documents should be placed under seal. First, a court must decide whether the documents
`constitute “judicial documents” such that a presumption of public access applies. See id. at 119.
`Second, if the court determines that the documents at issue constitute “judicial documents,” it must
`then determine the weight of the presumption of access. Id. at 121. Third, after determining the
`weight of the presumption of access, the court must balance the competing considerations against it.
`Id. at 120. Countervailing factors “include but are not limited to the danger of impairing law
`enforcement or judicial efficiency and the privacy interests of those resisting disclosure.” Id.
`
`Because Exhibit A is relevant to the relief Ms. Doe seeks, see Memorandum of Law in
`Support of the Motion at 9-10 & n.2, it is a judicial document. Lugosch, 435 F.3d at 119 (judicial
`documents are those that are “relevant to the performance of the judicial function and useful in the
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-08779-PGG Document 17 Filed 10/28/22 Page 2 of 2
`
`2
`
`judicial process”). It also contains highly personal, confidential, and sensitive information regarding
`Ms. Doe’s medical treatment.
`
`Where, as here, documents involve highly sensitive personal information, courts in the
`Second Circuit have recognized an inherent right to privacy and have permitted documents that
`implicate that right to be filed under seal. See United States v. Sattar, 471 F. Supp. 2d 380, 387
`(S.D.N.Y. 2006) (“[T]here is a recognized privacy interest in medical records, although that privacy
`right is neither fundamental nor absolute.”). Indeed, courts in this Circuit routinely file under seal
`litigants’ sensitive medical records. See, e.g., Robinson v. Clark, 2017 WL 775813, at *10 (S.D.N.Y.
`Feb. 27, 2017) (filing submission under seal where documents contained “medical information not
`appropriate for filing on a public docket”). Moreover, Your Honor’s Individual Rules of Practice in
`Civil Cases § II notes that “medical records [and] treatment and diagnosis” “should be treated with
`caution and may warrant a motion for approval of sealed or redacted filing.”
`
`Thank you for your consideration of this request.
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`________________________
` Roberta A. Kaplan
`
`MEMO ENDORSED:
`Plaintiff’s request to seal the exhibit (Dkt. No.
`7-1) is granted because the document involves
`information pertaining to Plaintiff’s medical
`treatment.
`
`Dated: October 28, 2022
`
`