On September 29, 2023, Justice Masley of the New York County Commercial Division issued a decision in Beach v. Touradji Capital Mgt., LP, 2023 NY Slip Op. 33360(U), denying a motion to redact documents showing a party’s business dealings with the Trump family, explaining:
Under New York law, there is a broad presumption that the public is entitled to access to judicial proceedings and court records. It is a bedrock principle of our judicial system that the public has a presumptive right of access to 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.. . .
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.
Plaintiffs’ first reason for redaction is to deny further access to admitted evidence because the court files might become a vehicle for improper purposes. However, plaintiffs fail to identify defendants’ improper purpose. Rather, plaintiffs opine that defendants have only improper purposes for using the Trump name either to prejudice the jury pool for the retrial or to increase risk of reputational harm to plaintiffs, or perhaps to generate settlement leverage. Other than plaintiffs’ counsel’s affirmation labeling the name Trump as prejudicial information, there is effectively no affidavit in support of this motion. Accordingly, this reason is rejected as speculative and vague.
Plaintiffs’ second reason to redact the Trump name from the emails already in the record is that when a party uses the threat of public disclosure for tactical purposes, such as to apply extrajudicial settlement pressure, courts generally grant sealing orders. However, plaintiffs fail to identify such a threat in this case. Again, the court rejects plaintiffs’ argument as speculative and vague.
Plaintiffs next point to the Sealing Order. However, the Sealing Order was subject to further court order. Indeed, much has changed since that Order. Most significantly, the emails are in evidence. The court controls the evidence after trial and whether it can be replicated for public consumption or subsequently inspected, and the court may limit access to the evidentiary record after the trial. The common-law presumption of access, as applied to the inspecting and copying of court records, is especially strong for any item entered into evidence at a public session of the trial although, again, it is not absolute.At issue here is the public filing of emails, admitted into evidence at trial, for the purpose of deciding post-trial motions. This court is compelled to conduct its own evaluation of good cause in the absence of a statement of good cause in the Sealing Order. Plaintiffs’ reliance on the parties’ stipulation is rejected as parties cannot stipulate to seal documents. Consent does not establish good cause; rather, a court must make its own written finding of good cause, as is required by the provisions of the Uniform Rules for Trial Courts.
The court rejects plaintiffs’ invitation to redact the names of non-parties on exhibits for privacy reasons. Plaintiffs admit that Trump Jr. is a public figure, and public figures are afforded little privacy protection.
Finally, plaintiffs assert that the Trump name is toxic and presumptively prejudicial to any New York jury. This too is speculative, and as discussed on the record, is rejected. Voir dire is the process which has served the courts well since the inception of jury selection and gives the parties amply opportunity to explore potential biases. Further, it is a fundamental assumption of our system of trial by jury that, after the presentation of evidence and argument by counsel, the jury will apply the law to the facts to reach a proper and reasoned verdict.
Also, implicit in this argument is that Beach is embarrassed of his affiliation. However, the cases are clear that embarrassment is not good cause to seal.
(Internal quotations and citations omitted).