UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ----------------------------------------------------------X : JAMIE DERRICA, : Plaintiff, : : -against- : 21-CV-8820 (VSB) : : ORDER TURA, INC., : : Defendant. : ----------------------------------------------------------X

VERNON S. BRODERICK, United States District Judge: The parties stipulated to voluntary dismissal, with prejudice, of this action on March 27, 2023. (Doc. 45.) On September 5, 2025, Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, filed a letter motion to redact her name from all filed documents and “replace it with her initials” or “Jane Doe” because she is facing “harassment via phone, email, and even in-person confrontations” from “a former co-worker who is aware of [her] litigation history against [their] mutual former employer.” (Doc. 46 at 2.) Plaintiff requests that all court filings be sealed in the interim “until they can be properly redacted.” (Id. at 3.) “A ‘judicial document’ or ‘judicial record’ is a filed item that is ‘relevant to the performance of the judicial function and useful in the judicial process.’” Bernstein v. Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP,

, 139 (2d Cir. 2016) (quoting Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga,

(2d Cir. 2006)). “Such documents are presumptively public so that the federal courts ‘have a measure of accountability’ and so that the public may ‘have confidence in the administration of justice.’”

(quoting United States v. Amodeo,

(2d Cir. 1995)). Plaintiff attaches a copy of a police report, but otherwise fails to provide (1) any details of such alleged harassment, including their dates, times, content, or context, or (2) the identity of the former co-worker. Furthermore, at this juncture, it is unclear which filings are judicial documents entitled to a presumption of being publicly filed. It is also unclear whether Plaintiff has satisfied the “three-step process for determining whether documents should be placed under seal.” Church Ins. Co. v. ACE Prop. & Casualty Ins. Co., No. 10-CV-698,

, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 23, 2010) (citation omitted). Accordingly, it is hereby: ORDERED that, by September 22, 2025, Plaintiff submit copies of the communications that constitute harassment, and/or a sworn affidavit regarding their details and content. To the extent Plaintiff does not wish to publicly file those documents, Plaintiff can email them to brodericknysdchambers @nysd.uscourts.gov, and must articulate why they should not be filed publicly. If sent by email, Plaintiff should be sure to include defense counsel in the email thread. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, by October 6, 2025, Defendant submit a letter describing (1) whether or not they object to Plaintiff's request, (2) their analysis of the law and its application here, and (3) any other relevant considerations. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, Plaintiff shall submit a reply, no longer than 3 pages, by October 20, 2025. The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to mail a copy of this Order to pro se Plaintiff at 156 Osborne Avenue Bayhead, NJ 08742.

SO ORDERED. Dated: September 8, 2025 New York, New York /\ yf . Vernon S. Broderick United States District Judge