On December 22, 2025, Justice Cohen of the New York County Commercial Division issued a decision in George S. Kaufman Charitable Found. v. Kearns, 2025 NY Slip Op. 34956(U), holding that the fact that parties designated documents as confidential is, without more, an insufficient basis to justify sealing them, explaining:
The Appellate Division has emphasized that there is a broad presumption that the public is entitled to access to judicial proceedings and court records. 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. 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.
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 whether good cause has been shown, the court shall consider the interests of the public as well as of the parties. 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.
Here, Defendants’ broad and categorical assertions of good cause do not establish a compelling justification for the wholesale sealing of the documents at issue in this motion. While portions of certain documents may include sensitive or proprietary information of parties or non-parties, the record on this motion does not establish that is the case. In view of the admonition that sealing of court records must be narrowly tailored to serve compelling objectives, Defendants will need to propose and justify targeted redactions that satisfy the requirements of 22 NYCRR § 216(a) and applicable case law.
The documents will remain provisionally under seal to permit the prompt filing of a follow-up motion proposing and explaining the need for specific redactions.
(Internal quotations and citations omitted).