On March 24, 2026, Justice Cohen of the New York County Commercial Division issued a decision in Goanna Capital Private Tech. II LP v. Blair, 2026 NY Slip Op. 31203(U), holding that an agreement by the parties to keep documents confidential was an insufficient ground to seal court records, explaining:
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 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. Good cause must rest on a sound basis or legitimate need to take judicial action. Agreements to seal are insufficient as such agreements do not establish good cause.
The Court has reviewed the various documents that Plaintiff seeks to seal in their entirety and finds that Plaintiff has not demonstrated why any confidential information cannot be protected through targeted redaction. The mere fact that Goanna and Mr. Blair entered into an agreement containing a confidentiality provision is not, by itself, a reason to grant the motion. In view of the admonition that sealing of court records must be narrowly tailored to serve compelling objectives, Plaintiff will need to propose and justify targeted redactions of these documents 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.
As for the two documents that Plaintiff seeks permission to redact, Plaintiff needs to justify any redactions of NYSCEF Document Number 2 before the Court can grant permission to redact other documents on that basis.
(Internal quotations and citations omitted).