`COUNTY OF ULSTER
`
`
`-X
`
`JOHN DOE I and JOHN DOE II,
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-against-
`
`WILLIAM J. DEDERICK, et al,
`
`Index No. EF2020-1189
`
`STIPULATION AND
`ORDER TO SEAL NYSCEF
`NO. 154
`
`
`
`
`
`Before:
`Hon. Justin Corcoran
`
`Defendants.
`
`-X
`
`This matter having come before the Court by stipulation of Plaintiffs, John Doe I and John
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Doe II, and Defendants, William J. Dederick and Kingston City School District, for the sealing of
`
`unredacted Reply Affirmation in Support of its Motion to Compel Discovery (“Reply
`
`Affirmation”). (NYSCEF Doc. No. 154).
`
`1.
`
`Plaintiffs bring their claims under the Child Victims Act, CPLR 214-g and 22
`
`NYCRR § 202.72.
`
`2.
`
`In the evening on September 26, 2023, Plaintiffs mistakenly filed an unredacted
`
`Reply Affirmation in Support of its Motion to Compel Discovery (“Reply Affirmation”).
`
`(NYSCEF Doc. No. 154). The unredacted Reply Affirmation inadvertently identified nonparties
`
`by their full names and included other personal information relevant to the Motion to Compel
`
`Discovery.
`
`3.
`
`Counsel for Plaintiffs immediately realized this error and shortly thereafter filed a
`
`redacted version of the Reply Affirmation (NYSCEF Doc. No. 155).
`
`4.
`
`The unredacted Reply Affirmation contains confidential information of nonparties
`
`which should not be publicly available for the protection of those nonparties.
`
`DocuSign Envelope ID: B36FE78C-566C-4582-BF20-8AA1D4E850DD
`
`
`
`5.
`
`The parties now stipulate to an Order directing the Clerk pursuant Rule 216.1 to
`
`seal the Reply Affirmation to all except those authorized by law to have access.
`
`6.
`
`A Court may enter an order sealing judicial records upon a “written finding of good
`
`cause, which shall specify the grounds thereof.” 22 NYCRR § 216.1.
`
`7.
`
`Whether good cause has been shown in a particular case is left to the sound
`
`discretion of the trial court. See, e.g., Mancheski v. Gabelli Grp. Capital Partners, 39 A.D.3d 499,
`
`502 (2d Dep’t 2007) (“[G]ood cause, in essence, ‘boils down to the prudent exercise of the court’s
`
`discretion.’”) (internal citation omitted); Crain Communications, Inc. v. Hughes, 135 A.D.2d 351,
`
`351 (1st Dep’t 1987), aff’d, 74 N.Y.2d 626 (1989) (“[T]he determination of whether access to such
`
`records is appropriate is best left to the sound discretion of the trial court… in light of the relevant
`
`facts and circumstances of the particular case.”).
`
`8.
`
`Although the public generally has a right of access to the records of public court
`
`proceedings, that presumptive right to access is “not absolute.” Mosallem v. Berenson, 905
`
`N.Y.S.2d 575, 578 (1st Dept. 2010). Rather, in making a determination, courts must balance the
`
`interests of the public’s right to openness of public proceedings with the parties’ interest in sealing
`
`court records. Id. at 579. “When the balance favors confidentiality, confidentiality should be
`
`provided.” In re Twentieth Cent. Fox Film Corp., 190 A.D. 2d 483, 486 (1st Dep’t 1993) (internal
`
`citations omitted).
`
`9.
`
`Here, good cause exists to seal the unredacted Reply Affirmation to protect the
`
`identities and other personal information of nonparties to this matter. The unredacted Reply
`
`Affirmation has been provided to the Court and the parties.
`
`10.
`
`The parties agree that the unredacted Reply Affirmation should be sealed for the
`
`reasons stated herein.
`
`
`
`2
`
`DocuSign Envelope ID: B36FE78C-566C-4582-BF20-8AA1D4E850DD
`
`
`
`Dated: New York, New York
`September 27, 2023
`
`
`
`Daniel Tramel Stabile
`Email: dstabile@winston.com
`WINSTON & STRAWN
`200 South Biscayne Boulevard
`Miami, FL 33131
`Tel: 305-910-0787
`Counsel for Plaintiff John Doe
`
`/s/ Daniel R. Lazaro
`Daniel R. Lazaro
`Email: dan.lazaro@bipc.com
`BUCHANAN INGERSOLL &
`ROONEY PC
`640 Fifth Avenue, 9th Floor
`New York, NY 10019
`Tel: 212-440-4400
`
`And
`
`Miranda L. Soto, Esq.
`Email: miranda.soto@bipc.com
`BUCHANAN INGERSOLL &
`ROONEY PC
`One Biscayne Tower, Suite 1500
`Miami, Florida 33131
`Telephone: 305-347-4086
`Admitted pro hac vice
`
`Counsel for Plaintiffs John Doe and John
`Doe II
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`
`
`Dylan S. Gallagher, Esq.
`Email: DGallagher@onplaw.com
`Jennifer Roth
`Email: jroth@onplaw.com
`O’CONNOR & PARTNERS, PLLC
`255 Wall Street
`Kingston, New York 12401
`Telephone: 305-303-8777
`
`Counsel for Defendant William J. Dederick
`
`And
`
`Valentina Lumaj, Esq.
`Email: VLumaj@silvermanandassociatesny.com
`Lewis Silverman, Esq.
`Email: lsilverman@silvermanandassociatesny.com
`SILVERMAN & ASSOCIATES
`445 Hamilton Avenue #1102
`White Plains, NY 10601
`Telephone: 914-574-4510
`
`Mark C. Rushfield, Esq.
`Email: mrushfield@shawperelson.com
`SHAW, PERELSON, MAY & LAMBERT,
`LLP
`21 Van Wagner Road
`Poughkeepsie, NY 12602
`Telephone: 845-486-4200
`
`Counsel for Defendant Kingston City School
`District
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`DocuSign Envelope ID: B36FE78C-566C-4582-BF20-8AA1D4E850DD
`
`
`
`SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
`ULSTER COUNTY C
`
`JOHN DOE and JOHN DOE II,
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-against-
`
`WILLIAM J. DEDERICK and
`KINGSTON CITY SCHOOL DISTRICT,
`
`
`
`
`
`Index No.: EF2020-1189
`
`[PROPOSED] ORDER
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Defendants.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ORDERED that the Stipulation is APPROVED; and it is further
`
`ORDERED the Reply Affirmation in Support of Motion to Compel Discovery Pursuant
`
`to CPLR§3124, NYSCEF Doc. No. 154, shall immediately be sealed, with access restricted to
`
`those authorized by law to have access.
`
`
`
`Dated: September __, 2023
` Albany, New York
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`____________________________________
`Hon. Justin Corcoran
`
`
`
`4
`
`DocuSign Envelope ID: B36FE78C-566C-4582-BF20-8AA1D4E850DD
`
`