The views expressed in this blog are those of the owner and do not reflect the views or opinions of the owner’s employer. All content provided on this blog is for informational purposes only. The owner of this blog makes no representations as to the accuracy or completeness of any information on this site or found by following any link on this site. The owner will not be liable for any errors or omissions in this information nor for the availability of this information. The owner will not be liable for any losses, injuries, or damages from the display or use of this information. This policy is subject to change at any time. The owner is not an attorney, and nothing posted on this site should be construed as legal advice. Litigation Support Tip of the Night does not provide confirmation that any e-discovery technique or conduct is compliant with legal, regulatory, contractual or ethical requirements.
Avenir Light is a clean and stylish font favored by designers. It's easy on the eyes and a great go to font for titles, paragraphs & more.
Nov 29, 2020
S.D.N.Y. Orders Redactions In Summary Judgment Exhibits for PII Covered by GDPR
This past week, Judge Ronnie Abrams issued a decision, Letchford v. Scotwork (N. Am.), Inc., 19-CV-8921, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 221770 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 24, 2020) granting the parties' joint motion to seal exhibits for their summary judgment motions.
The parties requested permission to redact personal information (email addresses, telephone numbers, and home addresses) of Scotwork employees who were EU citizens pursuant to the requirements of the General Data Protection Regulation. The Court determined that even though there was a strong presumption of access, since the documents were relevant for the Court's judicial function, it found limited redactions could be made since the personal information was not necessary or helpful to deciding the summary judgment motion. "Court thus finds that the parties' interest in maintaining the confidentiality of Defendants' employees' personal information sufficient to rebut the common-law presumption of access." Id. at *3.