DU IN] LJ YW! IVVEINEWIN & KING 600 Third Avenue, 22nd Floor | New York, NY 10016-1915 | bsk.com MICHAEL P. COLLINS, ESQ. mcollins@bsk.com P: 646.253.2318 F: 646.253.2368 July 29, 2021 Defendants sealing application is GRANTED for substantially the reasons Via ECF stated in Defendants’ letter. The materials at docket numbers 96, 97, 98 an 99 shall remain under seal with access limited to the parties listed in the Hon. Lorna G. Schofield appendix at docket number 95. Defendants shall file the redacted United States District Court documents on the public docket by August 11, 2021. Southern District of New York 500 Pearl Street The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to close the motion at Dkt. No. 95 New York, NY 10007 (212) 805-0288 Dated: August 4, 2021 New York, New York Re. Sankalp Bhatnagar v. Parsons School of Design and the New School LORNA G. SCHOFIEL: Case no. 20-cv-2321 (LGS) UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE Dear Judge Schofield, In accord with the Court’s Order of July 22, 2021, docket no. 102, this letter identifies specific portions of Defendant’s reply memorandum and supporting papers that contain sensitive, confidential information. Proposed redactions are attached and outlined below and have been placed using the three-part test outlined in Lugosch v. Pyramid Co., 435 F.3d 110, 119-120 (2d Cir. 2006), which provides that the court: (1) determine whether the documents are judicial documents and a common law presumption of access attaches; (2) determine the weight of the presumption of access; and (3) balance the presumption of access against competing considerations such as impairment of law enforcement, judicial efficiency, and the privacy interests of those resisting disclosure. In this case, redactions are appropriate in the following instances because the redacted portions of the documents contain protected health information in which Plaintiff has a strong privacy interest as outlined in Plaintiff's letter of July 14, 2021. Defendant’s Response to Additional Alleged Facts Pursuant to Rule 56.1 e Statement 10 e Response to Statement 10 Defendant’s Reply Memorandum of Law Attorneys At Law | A Professional Limited Liability Company 12839213.1 7/29/2021 Page 2 Hon. Lorna G. Schofield July 29, 2021 e Page 6, first full paragraph, 3“ sentence Likewise, the following redaction of a student’s name is appropriate based on the privacy interests of graduate students at Parsons School of Design who are not parties to this lawsuit and whose personally identifiable education records are barred from disclosure under the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act. Students’ names were redacted from the document production during discovery; however, upon further review, the following additional redaction of a student’s name is required. Exhibit 43 Other Students e Page 1, student name The few redactions requested by Defendant are tailored to protect the interests outlined in Lugosch, and Defendant submits that the Court’s motion may be decided without direct reference to the names of other Parsons’ graduate students or particularized references to Plaintiff's protected health information. Respectfully submitted, BOND, SCHOENECK & KING, PLLC ie pt OAMNAAS ichael P. Collins Encl. ce: Counsel of record 12839213.1 7/29/2021