On August 12, 2025, Justice Masley of the New York County Commercial Division issued a decision in Pattern Energy Group LP v. Perillo, 2025 NY Slip Op. 33084(U), refusing to seal filings because their contents were harmful to a party’s reputation, explaining:
Under New York law, 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, however, not absolute, and under certain circumstances, public inspection of court records has been limited by numerous statutes. One of those statutes is section 216.1 (a) of the Uniform Rules for Trial Courts, which empowers courts to seal documents upon a written finding of good cause. It provides:
Except where otherwise provided by statute or rule, a court shall not enter an order in any action or proceeding sealing the court records, whether in whole or in part, except upon a written finding of good cause, which shall specify the grounds thereof. In determining whether good cause has been shown, the court shall consider the interests of the public as well as of the parties. Where it appears necessary or desirable, the court may prescribe appropriate notice and opportunity to be heard.
The party seeking to seal court records has the burden to demonstrate compelling circumstances to justify restricting public access to the documents. Good cause must rest on a sound basis or legitimate need to take judicial action.
Defendants move to redact NYSCEF 10-13 and 47-50, asserting that these documents relate to a confidential arbitral dispute and contain confidential business and financial information. In opposition, plaintiff Pattern Energy Group LP argues that the information defendants seek to redact is not confidential, but rather information harmful to their reputation.
Defendants have failed to show good cause to redact Rhynhart’s affirmation.
The proposed redactions are general descriptions as to the arbitration proceedings and do not contain any confidential business information. The court acknowledges that, while there is not a per se sealing rule for records submitted to the court in connection with arbitration proceedings where, as is common among parties to arbitration, the parties had a strong expectation of confidentiality even in court proceedings to confirm the award, redaction may be appropriate. However, the sealing standards established in Mosallem still apply.
As to defendants’ memorandum of law, the request to redact certain information is denied for the same reason articulated above. Defendants have failed to establish that any of the proposed redactions to the memo contain sensitive and /or confidential business and financial information warranting sealing.
As to the amended statement of arbitration claims and amended answer, defendants have shown good cause to redact confidential business information such as the dollar amounts in para 2 of the amended statement of claims. However, neither the potential for embarrassment or damage to reputation, nor the general desire for privacy, constitutes good cause to seal court records. Thus, there is no good cause to permit the bulk of the proposed redactions detailing defendants’ alleged misconduct.
(Internal quotations and citations omitted).