Preview
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 10/03/2022 12:50 PM INDEX NO. 657193/2020
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 720 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 10/01/2022
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
COUNTY OF NEW YORK: COMMERCIAL DIVISION PART 03M
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------X
YASEMIN TEKINER, INDEX NO. 657193/2020
Plaintiff,
MOTION DATE 07/11/2022
-v-
MOTION SEQ. NO. 018
BREMEN HOUSE INC., BREMEN HOUSE TEXAS, INC.,
GERMAN NEWS COMPANY, INC., GERMAN NEWS
TEXAS, INC.,254-258 W. 35TH ST. LLC, BERRIN DECISION + ORDER ON
TEKINER, GONCA TEKINER, BILLUR AKIPEK, ZEYNEP MOTION
TEKINER,
Defendants.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------X
HON. JOEL M. COHEN:
The following e-filed documents, listed by NYSCEF document number (Motion 018) 377, 378, 380, 381,
382, 383, 385, 386, 387, 388, 389, 392, 393, 394, 395, 396, 419, 463, 464
were read on this motion to SEAL .
Plaintiff Yasemin Tekiner (“Plaintiff”) moves for an order sealing and/or redacting
certain documents (NYSCEF Doc. Nos. 377, 378, 380, 381, 382, 383, 385, 386, 387, 388, and
389) filed in connection with Mot. Seq. 022, which involves the parties’ dispute as to whether
Plaintiff should be able to take discovery into the mental health and substance abuse and
addiction issues of defendants Berrin Tekiner and Gonca Tekiner (“Defendants”). Michele
Kahn, on behalf of her client plaintiff Zeynep Tekiner, filed an affirmation in support of this
motion (NYSCEF 464). No parties oppose this motion. For the following reasons, Plaintiff’s
motion is granted in part.
Pursuant to § 216.1 (a) of the Uniform Rules for Trial Courts, this Court may seal a filing
“upon a written finding of good cause, which shall specify the grounds thereof. In determining
657193/2020 TEKINER, YASEMIN vs. BREMEN HOUSE INC. Page 1 of 4
Motion No. 018
1 of 4
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 10/03/2022 12:50 PM INDEX NO. 657193/2020
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 720 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 10/01/2022
whether good cause has been shown, the court shall consider the interests of the public as well as
of the parties” (22 NYCRR § 216.1 [a]).
The Appellate Division has emphasized that “there is a broad presumption that the public
is entitled to access to judicial proceedings and court records” (Mosallem v Berenson, 76 AD3d
345, 348 [1st Dept 2010]). “Since the right [of public access to court proceedings] is of
constitutional dimension, any order denying access must be narrowly tailored to serve
compelling objectives, such as a need for secrecy that outweighs the public’s right to
access” (Danco Labs., Ltd. v Chemical Works of Gedeon Richter, Ltd., 274 AD2d 1, 6 [1st Dept
2000] [emphasis added]; see also, e.g. Gryphon Dom. VI, LLC v APP Intern. Fin. Co., B.V., 28
AD3d 322, 324 [1st Dept 2006]). “Furthermore, because confidentiality is the exception and not
the rule, ‘the party seeking to seal court records has the burden to demonstrate compelling
circumstances to justify restricting public access’” (Maxim, Inc. v Feifer, 145 AD3d 516, 517
[1st Dept 2016] [citations omitted]). The fact that the parties have stipulated to sealing
documents, or that they have designated the documents during discovery as “Confidential” or
“Highly Confidential,” does not, by itself, require granting of the motion” (see, e.g., Maxim, 145
AD3d at 518; Gryphon, 28 AD3d at 324).
The Court has reviewed NYSCEF Doc. Nos. 380, 381, 382, 383, 385, 386, 387, 388, and
389, and finds good cause exists to seal these exhibits as they contain sensitive medical
information (see State v Bayrock Group LLC, 2017 NY Slip Op 30358[U], 4 [Sup Ct, NY
County 2017]). Further, Motion Sequence 022 was decided by Order and Decision dated August
17, 2022 (NYSCEF 680), and the Order directed the parties to “meet and confer to narrow the
categories of documents in dispute, taking into account the Court’s guidance, and that the parties
carefully and narrowly tailor their proposed discovery relating medical information to that which
657193/2020 TEKINER, YASEMIN vs. BREMEN HOUSE INC. Page 2 of 4
Motion No. 018
2 of 4
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 10/03/2022 12:50 PM INDEX NO. 657193/2020
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 720 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 10/01/2022
is necessary and appropriate to prosecute and defend the claims at issue in this litigation.” The
Order also granted in part Defendant’s cross-motion for a protective order relating to
Defendants’ medical information. Given this determination, sealing of these documents is
appropriate.
Plaintiff is directed to work with Defendants to file redacted versions of Plaintiff’s
Memorandum of Law (NYSCEF 377) and the Affirmation of Stephen P. Younger (NYSCEF
378) with Defendants’ medical information appropriately redacted.
Accordingly, it is:
ORDERED that Mot. Seq. 018 is granted in part; it is further
ORDERED that the Clerk shall maintain NYSCEF Doc. Nos. 377, 378, 380, 381, 382,
383, 385, 386, 387, 388, and 389 under seal, so that the documents may only be accessible by the
parties, their counsel, and authorized court personnel; it is further
ORDERED that Plaintiff is directed to work with Defendants to file redacted versions of
NYSCEF 377 and NYSCEF 378 within fourteen (14) days of the date of this Order; it is further
ORDERED as it related to future submissions, made by any party, that contain subject
matter that the Court has authorized to be sealed by this Order, parties may file a joint
stipulation, to be So Ordered, which will authorize the filing of such future submissions to be
filed in redacted form on NYSCEF, provided that an unredacted copy of any redacted document
is contemporaneously filed under seal; and it is further
ORDERED that nothing in this Order shall be construed as authorizing the sealing or
redaction of any documents or evidence to be offered at trial.
This constitutes the Decision and Order of the Court.
657193/2020 TEKINER, YASEMIN vs. BREMEN HOUSE INC. Page 3 of 4
Motion No. 018
3 of 4
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 10/03/2022 12:50 PM INDEX NO. 657193/2020
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 720 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 10/01/2022
10/1/2022
DATE JOEL M. COHEN, J.S.C.
CHECK ONE: CASE DISPOSED X NON-FINAL DISPOSITION
GRANTED DENIED X GRANTED IN PART OTHER
APPLICATION: SETTLE ORDER SUBMIT ORDER
CHECK IF APPROPRIATE: INCLUDES TRANSFER/REASSIGN FIDUCIARY APPOINTMENT REFERENCE
657193/2020 TEKINER, YASEMIN vs. BREMEN HOUSE INC. Page 4 of 4
Motion No. 018
4 of 4
Preview
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 10/03/2022 12:50 PM INDEX NO. 657193/2020 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 720 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 10/01/2022 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK: COMMERCIAL DIVISION PART 03M -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------X YASEMIN TEKINER, INDEX NO. 657193/2020 Plaintiff, MOTION DATE 07/11/2022 -v- MOTION SEQ. NO. 018 BREMEN HOUSE INC., BREMEN HOUSE TEXAS, INC., GERMAN NEWS COMPANY, INC., GERMAN NEWS TEXAS, INC.,254-258 W. 35TH ST. LLC, BERRIN DECISION + ORDER ON TEKINER, GONCA TEKINER, BILLUR AKIPEK, ZEYNEP MOTION TEKINER, Defendants. -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------X HON. JOEL M. COHEN: The following e-filed documents, listed by NYSCEF document number (Motion 018) 377, 378, 380, 381, 382, 383, 385, 386, 387, 388, 389, 392, 393, 394, 395, 396, 419, 463, 464 were read on this motion to SEAL . Plaintiff Yasemin Tekiner (“Plaintiff”) moves for an order sealing and/or redacting certain documents (NYSCEF Doc. Nos. 377, 378, 380, 381, 382, 383, 385, 386, 387, 388, and 389) filed in connection with Mot. Seq. 022, which involves the parties’ dispute as to whether Plaintiff should be able to take discovery into the mental health and substance abuse and addiction issues of defendants Berrin Tekiner and Gonca Tekiner (“Defendants”). Michele Kahn, on behalf of her client plaintiff Zeynep Tekiner, filed an affirmation in support of this motion (NYSCEF 464). No parties oppose this motion. For the following reasons, Plaintiff’s motion is granted in part. Pursuant to § 216.1 (a) of the Uniform Rules for Trial Courts, this Court may seal a filing “upon a written finding of good cause, which shall specify the grounds thereof. In determining 657193/2020 TEKINER, YASEMIN vs. BREMEN HOUSE INC. Page 1 of 4 Motion No. 018 1 of 4 FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 10/03/2022 12:50 PM INDEX NO. 657193/2020 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 720 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 10/01/2022 whether good cause has been shown, the court shall consider the interests of the public as well as of the parties” (22 NYCRR § 216.1 [a]). The Appellate Division has emphasized that “there is a broad presumption that the public is entitled to access to judicial proceedings and court records” (Mosallem v Berenson, 76 AD3d 345, 348 [1st Dept 2010]). “Since the right [of public access to court proceedings] is of constitutional dimension, any order denying access must be narrowly tailored to serve compelling objectives, such as a need for secrecy that outweighs the public’s right to access” (Danco Labs., Ltd. v Chemical Works of Gedeon Richter, Ltd., 274 AD2d 1, 6 [1st Dept 2000] [emphasis added]; see also, e.g. Gryphon Dom. VI, LLC v APP Intern. Fin. Co., B.V., 28 AD3d 322, 324 [1st Dept 2006]). “Furthermore, because confidentiality is the exception and not the rule, ‘the party seeking to seal court records has the burden to demonstrate compelling circumstances to justify restricting public access’” (Maxim, Inc. v Feifer, 145 AD3d 516, 517 [1st Dept 2016] [citations omitted]). The fact that the parties have stipulated to sealing documents, or that they have designated the documents during discovery as “Confidential” or “Highly Confidential,” does not, by itself, require granting of the motion” (see, e.g., Maxim, 145 AD3d at 518; Gryphon, 28 AD3d at 324). The Court has reviewed NYSCEF Doc. Nos. 380, 381, 382, 383, 385, 386, 387, 388, and 389, and finds good cause exists to seal these exhibits as they contain sensitive medical information (see State v Bayrock Group LLC, 2017 NY Slip Op 30358[U], 4 [Sup Ct, NY County 2017]). Further, Motion Sequence 022 was decided by Order and Decision dated August 17, 2022 (NYSCEF 680), and the Order directed the parties to “meet and confer to narrow the categories of documents in dispute, taking into account the Court’s guidance, and that the parties carefully and narrowly tailor their proposed discovery relating medical information to that which 657193/2020 TEKINER, YASEMIN vs. BREMEN HOUSE INC. Page 2 of 4 Motion No. 018 2 of 4 FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 10/03/2022 12:50 PM INDEX NO. 657193/2020 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 720 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 10/01/2022 is necessary and appropriate to prosecute and defend the claims at issue in this litigation.” The Order also granted in part Defendant’s cross-motion for a protective order relating to Defendants’ medical information. Given this determination, sealing of these documents is appropriate. Plaintiff is directed to work with Defendants to file redacted versions of Plaintiff’s Memorandum of Law (NYSCEF 377) and the Affirmation of Stephen P. Younger (NYSCEF 378) with Defendants’ medical information appropriately redacted. Accordingly, it is: ORDERED that Mot. Seq. 018 is granted in part; it is further ORDERED that the Clerk shall maintain NYSCEF Doc. Nos. 377, 378, 380, 381, 382, 383, 385, 386, 387, 388, and 389 under seal, so that the documents may only be accessible by the parties, their counsel, and authorized court personnel; it is further ORDERED that Plaintiff is directed to work with Defendants to file redacted versions of NYSCEF 377 and NYSCEF 378 within fourteen (14) days of the date of this Order; it is further ORDERED as it related to future submissions, made by any party, that contain subject matter that the Court has authorized to be sealed by this Order, parties may file a joint stipulation, to be So Ordered, which will authorize the filing of such future submissions to be filed in redacted form on NYSCEF, provided that an unredacted copy of any redacted document is contemporaneously filed under seal; and it is further ORDERED that nothing in this Order shall be construed as authorizing the sealing or redaction of any documents or evidence to be offered at trial. This constitutes the Decision and Order of the Court. 657193/2020 TEKINER, YASEMIN vs. BREMEN HOUSE INC. Page 3 of 4 Motion No. 018 3 of 4 FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 10/03/2022 12:50 PM INDEX NO. 657193/2020 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 720 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 10/01/2022 10/1/2022 DATE JOEL M. COHEN, J.S.C. CHECK ONE: CASE DISPOSED X NON-FINAL DISPOSITION GRANTED DENIED X GRANTED IN PART OTHER APPLICATION: SETTLE ORDER SUBMIT ORDER CHECK IF APPROPRIATE: INCLUDES TRANSFER/REASSIGN FIDUCIARY APPOINTMENT REFERENCE 657193/2020 TEKINER, YASEMIN vs. BREMEN HOUSE INC. Page 4 of 4 Motion No. 018 4 of 4