throbber
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
`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
`
`

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

Still Working On It

This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.

Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.

throbber

A few More Minutes ... Still Working

It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.

Thank you for your continued patience.

This document could not be displayed.

We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

Set your membership status to view this document.

With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll get a whole lot more, including:

  • Up-to-date information for this case.
  • Email alerts whenever there is an update.
  • Full text search for other cases.
  • Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.

Become a Member

One Moment Please

The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.

Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.

Your document is on its way!

If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.

Sealed Document

We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.

If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.


Access Government Site

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket