On July 25, 2022, Justice Reed of the New York County Commercial Division issued a decision in Deutsche Bank Sec. Inc. v 683 Capital Partners LP, 2022 NY Slip Op. 50666(U), refusing to seal court records, explaining:
Under New York law, there is a presumption that the public is entitled to access to judicial proceedings and court records. The public’s right to access, however, is not absolute, and a court is empowered to seal or redact court records pursuant to section 216.1 (a) of the Uniform Rules for Trial Courts upon a showing of good cause.
Section 216.1(a) of the Uniform Rules for Trial Courts empowers courts to seal documents upon a written finding of good cause. It provides:
“(a) [e]xcept 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 the parties. Where it appears necessary or desirable, the court may prescribe appropriate notice and an opportunity to be heard.”
Thus, sealing has been found to be appropriate to preserve the confidentiality of materials which involve internal finances of a party which are of minimal public interest. In the business context, courts permit records to be sealed when trade secrets are involved or when disclosure of information contained in documents could threaten a business’s competitive advantage. Moreover, sealing has been allowed in the absence of any legitimate public concern, as opposed to mere curiosity, to counterbalance the interest of a business’s partners and clients in keeping their financial arrangement private.
According to the affirmation of Andrew K. Glenn, Esq., representing the Corbin defendants, exhibits 2 and 3 should be sealed as the documents contain information, the disclosure of which would, in the good faith judgment of the Moving Defendants, be detrimental if the information were to become public. The documents the Corbin defendants seek to have sealed, include the affidavit of John Hartwell Cocke, Co-Portfolio Manager of Credit Strategies, for Corbin Capital Partners, L.P. (“Corbin”), the investment manager of Corbin Opportunity Fund, L.P. (“COF”) and Corbin Equity Fund, L.P., formerly known as Fort George Investments, LLC (“Fort George”), as well as the affidavit of Jennifer Bucher, general counsel of defendant Fifth Street Station LLC. Both affidavits attach copies of various assignments of loans between Corbin entities and other lenders.
There is no opposition to the motion and no indication that the public or press would have an interest in this matter. However, a party’s designation of a document as confidential or restricted, without further explanation or supporting case law, is insufficient to support a finding of good cause to seal court records in whole or in part.
Therefore, defendants’ request to seal NYSCEF doc nos. 5 and 6 is denied.
Likewise, in motion sequence no. 003, Glenn affirms that the Greenlight defendants are seeking an order sealing the affidavit of Daniel Roitman in support of Greenlight defendants’ motion to dismiss and exhibits 1 through 12 attached thereto, claiming the documents contain information, the disclosure of which would, in the good faith judgment of Greenlight Defendants, be detrimental if the information were to become public (affirmation of Andrew K Glenn in Support of Greenlight Defendant’s order to cause to seal. For the same reasons as set forth above, the motion by the Greenlight defendants to seal said records is denied.
(Internal quotations and citations omitted) (emphasis added).