On December 29, 2025, Justice Bannon of the New York County Commercial Division issued a decision in American Challenger Dev. Corp. v. Credit Suisse, 2025 NY Slip Op. 35061(U), holding that conclusory claims of confidentiality or commercial sensitivity were insufficient to justify sealing, explaining:
Pursuant to 22 NYCRR 216.1(a), 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. The Appellate Division has emphasized that there is a broad presumption that the public is entitled to access to judicial proceedings and court records. Because confidentiality is clearly the exception, not the rule, the First Department has authorized sealing only in strictly limited circumstances.
In the business context, good cause may be established where trade secrets are involved or where the release of documents could threaten a business’s competitive advantage. The burden is on the party seeking to seal court records to establish good cause.
The moving parties do not meet their respective burdens of demonstrating good cause to seal.
In MOT SEQ 005, the defendants fail to establish good cause to seal the memoranda of law filed by the defendants and plaintiff in connection with defendants’ motion to amend, as well as various exhibits attached. No argument regarding trade secrets is asserted but the defendants contend that these documents contain commercially sensitive information related to internal decision-making, and that disclosure of this information could harm the defendants’ competitive standing. This contention is conclusory, offered without any meaningful explanation.
For similar reasons, the court finds that non-party Michael McCormack fails to establish good cause in MOT SEQ 009, as he merely asserts that the documents contain substantive discussion of the parties’ negotiations of confidential business terms. To the extent that McCormack relies on a confidentiality agreement, such agreements are not binding on the court nor is the parties’ own joint finding of good cause to seal. Thus, even assuming the non-party moving has standing, his motion is denied.
In MOT SEQ 006, the plaintiff fails to show good cause to seal from public view or redact portions of a pleading, namely their answer to the defendants’ counterclaims. The plaintiff misplaces its reliance on two cursory affidavits which offer only the allegation that the subject pleading includes “confidential information provided to federal regulatory banking agencies. This case certainly does not present circumstances warranting an exception to the broad presumption that the public is entitled to access to judicial proceedings and court records. Rather, this allegation seems to weigh in favor of disclosure and transparency.
(Internal quotations and citations omitted).