Preview
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 10/03/2022 12:50 PM INDEX NO. 657193/2020
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 724 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 07/29/2022
-v-
MOTION SEQ. NO. 025
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 025) 481, 483, 485, 487,
488, 489, 492, 493, 497, 498, 499, 500, 501, 502, 505, 507, 509, 510, 511, 512, 514, 515, 516, 517,
575
were read on this motion to SEAL .
Defendants, Bremen House, Inc., German News Company, Inc., Berrin Tekiner, Gonca
(Tekiner) Chelsea, and Billur Akipek (“Defendants”) moves for an order sealing and/or redacting
certain documents (NYSCEF Doc. Nos. 481, 483, 485, 487, 488, 489, 492, 493, 497, 498, 499,
500, 501, 502, 505, 507, 509, 510, 511, and 512) filed in connection with Mot. Seq. 022, which
involves the parties’ dispute as to whether Plaintiff could compel the production of certain
documents labeled as privileged under Attorney-Client Privilege and 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. No parties oppose this motion. For the following
reasons, Defendants’ 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. 025
1 of 4
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 10/03/2022 12:50 PM INDEX NO. 657193/2020
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 724 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 481, 483, 485, 487, 497, 498, 499, 500, 502, 505, 507,
509, 510, and 511 and finds that they comport with the applicable sealing standards as laid out in
Mosallem, 76 AD3d at 348-50, and its progeny, in that they contain sensitive non-public
business information and/or sensitive medical information (see State v Bayrock Group LLC,
2017 NY Slip Op 30358[U], 4 [Sup Ct, NY County 2017]).
657193/2020 TEKINER, YASEMIN vs. BREMEN HOUSE INC. Page 2 of 4
Motion No. 025
2 of 4
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 10/03/2022 12:50 PM INDEX NO. 657193/2020
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 724 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 10/01/2022
However, the Excerpts of Deposition of Zeynep Tekiner (NYSCEF 489) and Excerpts of
Deposition of Billur Akipek (NYSCEF 488) should be unsealed as Defendants filed those
documents with redactions.
Finally, Defendants are directed to file redacted versions of their brief in opposition
(NYSCEF 512), the Akipek Affidavit (NYSCEF 492), the Berrin Affidavit (NYSCEF 493), and
the Gonca Affidavit (NYSCEF 501) to appropriately redact confidential business information
and/or sensitive medical information.
Accordingly, it is:
ORDERED that Mot. Seq. 025 is granted in part; it is further
ORDERED that the Clerk shall maintain NYSCEF Doc. Nos. 481, 483, 485, 487, 492,
493, 497, 498, 499, 500, 501, 502, 505, 507, 509, 510, 511, and 512 under seal, so that the
documents may only be accessible by the parties, their counsel, and authorized court personnel;
it is further
ORDERED that Defendant shall file redacted versions of NYSCEF, 492, 493, 501, and
512 in accordance with the Court’s direction above within seven (7) business days of the date of
this Order; it is further
ORDERED that the Clerk shall unseal NYSCEF Doc. Nos. 488 and 489; 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
657193/2020 TEKINER, YASEMIN vs. BREMEN HOUSE INC. Page 3 of 4
Motion No. 025
3 of 4
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 10/03/2022 12:50 PM INDEX NO. 657193/2020
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 724 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 10/01/2022
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.
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. 025
4 of 4
Preview
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 10/03/2022 12:50 PM INDEX NO. 657193/2020 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 724 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 07/29/2022 -v- MOTION SEQ. NO. 025 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 025) 481, 483, 485, 487, 488, 489, 492, 493, 497, 498, 499, 500, 501, 502, 505, 507, 509, 510, 511, 512, 514, 515, 516, 517, 575 were read on this motion to SEAL . Defendants, Bremen House, Inc., German News Company, Inc., Berrin Tekiner, Gonca (Tekiner) Chelsea, and Billur Akipek (“Defendants”) moves for an order sealing and/or redacting certain documents (NYSCEF Doc. Nos. 481, 483, 485, 487, 488, 489, 492, 493, 497, 498, 499, 500, 501, 502, 505, 507, 509, 510, 511, and 512) filed in connection with Mot. Seq. 022, which involves the parties’ dispute as to whether Plaintiff could compel the production of certain documents labeled as privileged under Attorney-Client Privilege and 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. No parties oppose this motion. For the following reasons, Defendants’ 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. 025 1 of 4 FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 10/03/2022 12:50 PM INDEX NO. 657193/2020 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 724 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 481, 483, 485, 487, 497, 498, 499, 500, 502, 505, 507, 509, 510, and 511 and finds that they comport with the applicable sealing standards as laid out in Mosallem, 76 AD3d at 348-50, and its progeny, in that they contain sensitive non-public business information and/or sensitive medical information (see State v Bayrock Group LLC, 2017 NY Slip Op 30358[U], 4 [Sup Ct, NY County 2017]). 657193/2020 TEKINER, YASEMIN vs. BREMEN HOUSE INC. Page 2 of 4 Motion No. 025 2 of 4 FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 10/03/2022 12:50 PM INDEX NO. 657193/2020 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 724 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 10/01/2022 However, the Excerpts of Deposition of Zeynep Tekiner (NYSCEF 489) and Excerpts of Deposition of Billur Akipek (NYSCEF 488) should be unsealed as Defendants filed those documents with redactions. Finally, Defendants are directed to file redacted versions of their brief in opposition (NYSCEF 512), the Akipek Affidavit (NYSCEF 492), the Berrin Affidavit (NYSCEF 493), and the Gonca Affidavit (NYSCEF 501) to appropriately redact confidential business information and/or sensitive medical information. Accordingly, it is: ORDERED that Mot. Seq. 025 is granted in part; it is further ORDERED that the Clerk shall maintain NYSCEF Doc. Nos. 481, 483, 485, 487, 492, 493, 497, 498, 499, 500, 501, 502, 505, 507, 509, 510, 511, and 512 under seal, so that the documents may only be accessible by the parties, their counsel, and authorized court personnel; it is further ORDERED that Defendant shall file redacted versions of NYSCEF, 492, 493, 501, and 512 in accordance with the Court’s direction above within seven (7) business days of the date of this Order; it is further ORDERED that the Clerk shall unseal NYSCEF Doc. Nos. 488 and 489; 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 657193/2020 TEKINER, YASEMIN vs. BREMEN HOUSE INC. Page 3 of 4 Motion No. 025 3 of 4 FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 10/03/2022 12:50 PM INDEX NO. 657193/2020 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 724 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 10/01/2022 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. 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. 025 4 of 4