On February 24, 2026, Justice Masley of the New York County Commercial Division issued a decision in Jabil Inc. v. Mavenir Sys., Inc., 2026 NY Slip Op. 30686(U), holding that the fact that the parties had agreed to treat documents as confidential was, without more, an insufficient basis to seal court records, 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. For example, § 216.1(a) of the Uniform Rules for Trial Courts, empowers courts to seal documents only 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.
First, the parties’ designation of the materials as confidential is not controlling on the court’s determination whether there is good cause to seal. Second, a party’s reliance on the parties’ confidentiality provision is insufficient to support sealing of a document.
Courts have sealed records where the disclosure of documents could threaten a business’s competitive advantage. Further, courts have sealed records containing sensitive proprietary and business information when the parties had an interest in protecting these documents and there was no countervailing public interest that would be furthered by their disclosure.
However, at the same time, courts heavily discourage wholesale sealing of documents. The law requires that any order denying access must be narrowly tailored to serve compelling objectives.
Defendant seeks to seal NYSCEF 52, 53, 54 and 55 in their entirety. Defendant’s singular argument for all documents is that these documents contain commercial terms that have deemed confidential between the parties. However, defendant fails to identify such commercial terms that may compromise confidentiality and its competitive advantage. The documents range from agreements between the parties, addendum to the agreement, statement of work, and confidential NDA. These documents contain definitions, and terms of a general nature which can be found in every commercial document like indemnification, warranty periods, damages, etc. Defendant fails to specify how and which terms would adversely affect the confidentiality between the parties.
Here, defendant has not only failed to narrowly redact the documents but also has failed to establish good cause as to the wholesale sealing of documents. Defendant is also reminded that they cannot solely rely on the confidentiality provision< of the agreements sought to be sealed as stated above.
(Internal quotations and citations omitted).