On May 2, 2024, Justice Bannon of the New York County Commercial Division issued a decision in Denver Wewatta (CO) LLC v. Amtrust Title Ins. Co., 2024 NY Slip Op. 31584(U), denying a motion to seal for lack of supporting evidence, explaining:
Because confidentiality is clearly the exception, not the rule, the First Department has authorized sealing only in strictly limited circumstances.
While there is a broad presumption that the public is entitled to access to judicial proceedings and court records, the public’s right to access is not absolute. The presumption of the benefit of public access to court proceedings takes precedence, and sealing of court papers is permitted only to serve compelling objectives, such as when the need for secrecy outweighs the public’s right to access. Thus, the court is required to make its own inquiry to determine whether sealing is warranted, and the court will not approve wholesale sealing of court papers, even when both sides to the litigation request sealing.
. . .
[T]he mere presence of financial information, without more, does not establish that there is good cause to seal.Here, the plaintiff fails to meet its burden of demonstrating good cause for the subject redactions. Other than the pleadings herein and a copy of the parties’ purchase and sale agreement, none of which are relevant to the proposed redactions, the sealing motion is accompanied solely by an attorney affirmation. No affidavits are submitted by officers of the plaintiff or any of the LCN Platform entities, the authors or custodians of the underlying financial records, or the participants in the relevant events who are alleged to have made statements regarding the financial information reflected in the underlying documents. Nor has the plaintiff submitted the underlying financial documents themselves, without which it is impossible for the court to determine the extent to which the allegations to be redacted do in fact disclose specific information drawn from confidential, non-public financial records. There is thus no basis to conclude that the underlying financial documents are so confidential or sensitive that public disclosure of their contents via the allegations in the Proposed Amended Counterclaims should be restricted. Instead, the plaintiff offers mere conclusory assertions, without any further explanation, that the information to be redacted is sensitive, proprietary, and confidential, and that its disclosure will harm its and the LCN Platform’s private competitive advantage. However, such conclusory claims of the need for confidentiality are not sufficient bases for a sealing order.
(Internal quotations and citations omitted).