Order | Filed: July 07, 2026
| Entered: July 07, 2026
Estate of Jaythan Kendrick v. New York City Housing Authority
Civil Rights: Other | New York Eastern
~Util - Set Deadlines
ORDER: The Court is in receipt of the parties' joint status report 91 , indicating that the parties seek to brief the issue of confidentiality designations as to two deposition transcripts and proposing an agreed-upon briefing schedule. The briefing schedule is granted. Plaintiff shall file his opening letter-brief by 7/22/2026. Also by 7/22/2026, the parties are directed to submit the relevant portions of Dr. Drob's deposition transcript to the Court via chambers email, merkl_chambers@nyed.uscourts.gov, for the Court's in camera review. The portions of the transcript that Plaintiff seeks to mark as confidential should be highlighted in a color other than yellow. Defendant's response letter-brief must be filed by 8/5/2026. Plaintiff's reply shall be filed by 8/12/2026.
The Court notes, however, that the parties represent that they "will file their respective letter-briefs under seal." The parties are reminded that they must follow the Court's rules as to the sealing of documents and no document may be filed under seal without leave of court. As a letter brief, the forthcoming documents are unquestionably "judicial document[s]," since they are "relevant to the performance of the judicial function and useful in the judicial process." United States v. Amodeo, 44 F.3d 141, 145 (2d Cir. 1995). "The right of public access gives rise to a rebuttable presumption of public availability, the weight of which presumption 'must be governed by the role of the material at issue in the exercise of Article III judicial power and the resultant value of such information to those monitoring the federal courts.'" Id. (quoting United States v. Amodeo, 71 F.3d 1044, 1049 (2d Cir. 1995)); see also United States v. Aref, 533 F.3d 72, 83 (2d Cir. 2008). The Court reminds counsel that parties' confidentiality designations do not provide an independent basis for sealing, particularly as to judicial documents such as a memorandum in support of a motion. See Cumberland Packing Corp. v. Monsanto Co., 184 F.R.D. 504, 506 (E.D.N.Y. 1999) (denying request for a protective order that would have required sealing of materials marked confidential by the parties). Accordingly, the parties must file their anticipated letter briefs as exhibits to accompanying motions for leave to file under seal in order for the Court to make particularized findings as to the propriety of any information the parties seek to file under seal.
More specifically, to request leave to file a sealed document, all parties must file a motion for leave to file a document under seal, using the appropriate ECF event, that includes (1) the basis and authority on which the parties are relying in support of their application for sealing; and (2) the unredacted version of the document, with any proposed redactions identified, by highlighting (in a color other than yellow) or detailing the proposed redactions in a chart, in anticipation of filing a version of the document(s) publicly. Finally, the Court notes that the actual motions for leave to file under seal are also judicial documents and should be prepared such that they may be filed publicly. Ordered by Magistrate Judge Taryn A. Merkl on 7/7/2026. (DT)