Linden Care, LLC v. Express Scripts, Inc.
New York Northern District Court | |
Judge: | Brenda K Sannes |
Referred: | Christian F Hummel |
Case #: | 1:15-cv-01335 |
Nature of Suit | 190 Contract - Other Contract |
Cause | 28:1332 Diversity-Contract Dispute |
Case Filed: | Nov 10, 2015 |
Terminated: | Dec 15, 2015 |
Last checked: Sunday May 08, 2016 4:18 AM EDT |
Defendant
Express Scripts, Inc.
|
Represented By
|
Plaintiff
Linden Care, LLC
|
Represented By
|
Docket last updated: 44 minutes ago |
Monday, January 11, 2016 | ||
85 | 85
appeal
USCA Mandate
Tue 01/12 1:28 PM
MANDATE of USCA. The parties have filed a stipulation withdrawing the appeal pursuant to Local Rule 42.1. The stipulation is "So Ordered." (lah) |
|
84 | 84
misc
Transcript - Redacted
Mon 01/11 11:40 AM
Redaction of60 Transcript,,,, (etm, ) |
|
83 | 83
misc
Transcript - Redacted
Mon 01/11 11:39 AM
Redaction of59 Transcript,,,, (etm, ) |
|
Thursday, January 07, 2016 | ||
82 | 82
order
Order
Thu 01/07 2:45 PM
TEXT ORDER: The Court has reviewed Dkt. No.79 . Plaintiff's request for redactions is GRANTED. SO ORDERED by Judge Brenda K. Sannes on 1/7/16. (rjb, ) |
|
81 | 81
order
Order
Thu 01/07 2:43 PM
TEXT ORDER: The Court has reviewed Plaintiff's request80 for: (1) redaction of the transcripts59 60 of the names of patient-witnesses who testified at the evidentiary hearings held on November 20, 2015 and November 23, 2015, to their initials to protect patient identity; and (2) redaction of certain "personal health information" contained in the transcript60 of the evidentiary hearing held on November 23, 2015. As the Second Circuit has explained, the First Amendment right of access "applies 'to civil trials and to their related proceedings and records,'" Newsday LLC v. Cty. of Nassau, 730 F.3d 156, 163 (2d Cir. 2013) (quoting N.Y. Civil Liberties Union v. N.Y.C. Transit Auth., 684 F.3d 286, 298 (2d Cir. 2012)), and the "transcript of a proceeding is so closely related to the ability to attend the proceeding itself that maintaining secrecy is appropriate only if closing the courtroom was appropriate." Id. at 165. The Court finds that redaction of the names of patient-witnesses and certain "personal health information" of one of the witnesses is necessary to protect the higher value of the witnesses' personal privacy interests, see United States v. Amodeo, 71 F.3d 1044, 1050-51 (2d Cir. 1995) ([t]he privacy interests of innocent third parties... should weigh heavily in a court's balancing equation) (internal quotation marks omitted), and that the requested redactions are narrowly tailored to that end. See Local Rule 8.1; Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga, 435 F.3d 110, 124 (2d Cir. 2006). Accordingly, Plaintiff's request80 is GRANTED. SO ORDERED by Judge Brenda K. Sannes on 1/7/16. (rjb, ) |