On October 27, 2025, Justice Masley of the New York County Commercial Division issued a decision in Citi Private Advisory, LLC v. Barrett, 2025 NY Slip Op. 34158(U), denying a sealing motion for failure adequately to document the need for sealing, explaining:
Under New York law, there is a broad presumption that the public is entitled toaccess 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 hasbeen limited by numerous statutes. For example, § 216.1(a) of theUniform Rules for Trial Courts, empowers courts to seal documents only upon a writtenfinding of good cause. It provides:
Except where otherwise provided by statute or rule, a court shall not enteran order in any action or proceeding sealing the court records, whether inwhole or in part, except upon a written finding of good cause, which shallspecify the grounds thereof. In determining whether good cause has beenshown, the court shall consider the interests of the public as well as of theparties. Where it appears necessary or desirable, the court may prescribeappropriate notice and opportunity to be heard.
The party seeking to seal court records has the burden to demonstratecompelling circumstances to justify restricting public access to the documents. Good cause must rest on a soundbasis or legitimate need to take judicial action.
As a preliminary matter, respondent fails to submit an affidavit from a personwith knowledge explaining why the file or certain documents should be sealed. Counsel’s affirmation is insufficient. Where no affidavits are submitted by any of the defendants, the authors of the documents or the participants in the events recorded therein there is no evidence in the record as to why the documents are so confidential or sensitive that public access to them should be restricted.
Further, respondent fails to meet his substantial burden of establishing good cause to seal the proposed documents. Respondent asserts that the filings fall into categories for which good cause typically exists to seal and/or redact, including documents with private or financial information of Mr. Barrett and non-parties without substantial public interest therein and documents evidencing Mr. Barrett’s competitive business practices. However, respondent has not filed any proposed redactions. While there may be portions of the emails that contain private, financial, and competitive business information, the emails also containinformation that, on its face, is neither private nor business-sensitive. Respondent failsto establish good cause to seal such non-sensitive information. The law requires thatany order denying access must be narrowly tailored to serve compelling objectives. Accordingly, respondent will need to propose and justifytargeted redactions that satisfy the requirements of 22 NYCRR § 216 [a] and applicablecase law.
For the same reason, respondent’s argument that good cause exists to seal orredact the documents because they were produced in a confidential arbitrationproceeding and governed by a confidentiality agreement fails. Respondent citesRapper’s Delight Ventures, LLC v Peets (2024 NY Slip Op 33463[U], *5 [Sup Ct, NYCounty 2024]) for the proposition that good cause exists when there are narrowredactions of materials related to a private arbitration and there has been no showing ofa legitimate public interest in this information. Similarly, respondent cites Employees Retirement Sys. for the City of Providence vRohner (2025 NY Slip Op 31327[U], 11 [Sup Ct, NY County 2025]), which sets forth that, although a confidentiality agreement entered for purposes of exchanging information does not constitute good cause to seal it demonstrates the steps taken to protect confidential information and can lend support to an argument for redacting. These cases confirm that the law does not generally recognize good cause for sealing documents, even if they relate to a private arbitrationor are the subject of a confidentiality agreement. Respondent fails to explain why thesedocuments are exceptional.
Respondent’s motion to seal is denied without prejudice, and leave is granted torefile an application to seal portions of documents that contain private, financial, andcompetitive business information within 10 days of the date of this decision.
(Internal quotations and citations omitted).