Opinion
20 Civ. 5593 (RA) (GWG)
12-28-2022
JENNIFER ECKHART Plaintiff, v. FOX NEWS NETWORK, LLC et al., Defendants.
ORDER
GABRIEL W. GORENSTEIN, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.
With regard to the dispute raised in Docket # 220, 224, the normal rule is that redactions based on relevance are not permissible.. See, e.g. Christine Asia Co., Ltd. v. Alibaba Group Holding Ltd., 327 F.R.D. 52, 54 (S.D.N.Y. 2018). This is true even in cases where the redaction are “based on concerns about personal privacy,” as long as a confidentiality order is in place. Trireme Energy Holdings, Inc. v. Innogy Renewables U.S. LLC, 2022 WL 621957, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 3, 2022). The Court regrets that it did not make it intentions known in its origin ruling.
Accordingly, to the extent any practitioner was presented with a complaint by plaintiff about a mental problem during a particular visit, plaintiffs shall produce the entire record for tha visit. Obviously, any such record may be designated as confidential. The records shall be produced within 10 days or on any other date mutually agreed to be the parties.
SO ORDERED.