On July 8, 2022, Justice Cohen of the New York County Commercial Division issued a decision in Tekiner v. Bremen House Inc., 2022 NY Slip Op. 32191(U), refusing to seal documents despite the parties’ agreement to seal, 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.
In this case, Plaintiff submits that it has filed Motions 008 and 014 based solely on Defendants’ contention that these documents contain sensitive business information and/or personal potentially identifying information in accordance with the parties’ confidentiality stipulation. Defendants’ motion provides no further explanation or support for its confidentiality designations. 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.
Defendants’ broad and categorical assertions of good cause do not establish a compelling justification to seal the at issue in this motion. While portions of certain documents may include sensitive or confidential information, the record on these motions does not establish that is the case. In view of the admonition that sealing of court records must be narrowly tailored to serve
(Internal quotations and citations omitted).
compelling objectives, Defendants will need to propose and justify targeted redactions that satisfy the requirements of 22 NYCRR § 216 (a) and applicable case law.