Motion to Seal in New York

Background

“The public right to access [judicial records] is not absolute.” (Mosallem v. Berenson, 76 A.D.3d 345, 349 [1st Dept. 2010].) The court may enter an order sealing court records where it finds “good cause,”having considered “the interests of the public as well as of the parties.” (22 CRR-NY 216.1.)

How to Structure the Motion

There is a broad presumption under New York law in favor of a public’s right to access judicial proceedings and court records. (Mosallem v. Berenson, 76 A.D.3d 345 [1st Dept. 2010].) So strong is this presumption that there must be judicial review of documents even where parties agree to sealing. (Mancheski v. Gabelli Group Capital Partners, 39 A.D.3d 499 [2nd Dept. 2007].)

Good cause to seal exists where a filing would cause harm to a non-party by, for example, revealing confidential “third-party financial information” or “current or future business strategies.” (Mancheski v. Gabelli Grp. Cap. Partners, 39 A.D.3d 499, 502 [2nd Dept. 2007].) After good cause is shown, the court engages in a balancing process, weighing the movant’s cause for sealing against the public interest in access to court documents. (Id.) Courts assess whether there is a legitimate public interest in the matter in question or simply “mere curiosity.” (Dawson v. White & Case, 184 A.D.2d 246, 247 [1st Dept. 1992].)

“Confidentiality is, in certain circumstances, necessary in order to protect the litigants or encourage a fair resolution of the matter in controversy.” (In re Twentieth Century Fox Film Corp., 190 A.D.2d 483, 486 [1st Dept. 1993].) Good cause to seal the record is shown where “public access to the documents at issue will likely result in harm to a compelling interest of the movant.” (Mosallem v. Berenson, 76 A.D.3d 345, 349 [1st Dept. 2010].)

“The party seeking to seal court records has the burden to demonstrate compelling circumstances to justify restricting public access.” (Id. at 349.)

The Court’s Decision

In determining whether to seal documents, courts must balance legitimate needs for secrecy with the public’s right to access. (Applehead Pictures, LLC v. Perelman, 80 A.D.3d 181, 191-92 [1st Dept. 2010].) “When balance favors confidentiality, confidentiality should be provided.” (In re Twentieth Century Fox Film Corp., 190 A.D.2d 483, 486 [1st Dept. 1993].) Where “the relevant facts and circumstances of the particular case” justify protecting information from public disclosure, the court should exercise its discretion to grant a motion to seal. (Dawson v. White & Case, 184 A.D.2d 246, 247 [1st Dept. 1992].)