On December 4, 2024, Justice Cohen of the New York County Commercial Division issued a decision in Avenue Capital Mgt. II, L.P. v. Chubb European Group S.E., 2024 NY Slip Op. 34296(U), holding that the fact that documents were designated confidential under a confidentiality order is insufficient, by itself, to justify sealing, explaining:
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.
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 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.Swiss Re and Chubb advance no basis to seal the documents other than that the documents were provisionally designated as “Confidential” under the stipulation and order filed as NYSCEF Document Number 97. This does not establish a compelling justification to seal the documents at issue. Accordingly, Swiss Re and Chubb’s motion is denied.
(Internal quotations and citations omitted).