Owen v. Array U.S., Inc.

JOEL M. COHEN, J.S.C.

Unpublished Opinion

MOTION DATE 09/19/2024, 10/15/2024, 10/30/2024, 10/30/2024, 10/30/2024

DECISION + ORDER ON MOTION

JOEL M. COHEN, J.S.C.

The following e-filed documents, listed by NYSCEF document number (Motion 012) 249, 250, 251, 252, 253, 254, 255, 256, 257, 258, 262, 263, 451,452, 453, 454, 455, 456, 457, 458, 459, 460, 461 were read on this motion to SEAL / REDACT

The following e-filed documents, listed by NYSCEF document number (Motion 013) 266, 267, 268, 269, 270,271,272, 462, 463, 464 were read on this motion to SEAL / REDACT

The following e-filed documents, listed by NYSCEF document number (Motion 014) 403, 404, 405, 406, 407, 408, 465, 466, 467, 468, 469, 470, 471,472, 473, 474, 475, 476, 477, 478, 479, 480, 481 were read on this motion to SEAL / REDACT

The following e-filed documents, listed by NYSCEF document number (Motion 014) 403, 404, 405, 406, 407, 408, 465, 466, 467, 468, 469, 470, 471,472, 473, 474, 475, 476, 477, 478, 479, 480, 481 were read on this motion to SEAL / REDACT

The following e-filed documents, listed by NYSCEF document number (Motion 014) 403, 404, 405, 406, 407, 408, 465, 466, 467, 468, 469, 470, 471,472, 473, 474, 475, 476, 477, 478, 479, 480, 481 were read on this motion to SEAL / REDACT

Defendant Array US, Inc. ("Array"), seeks orders sealing and/or redacting exhibits that were filed in connection with this proceeding as NYSCEF Document Numbers 213, 219, 222, 227, 236, and 246 (MS 012); 157 (MS 013); and 284, 286, 293, 305, 316, 318, 324, 331, 334, 336, 338, 342, 345, 363, 367, 371, 376, 378, 383, 388, 396, 398, and 399 (MS 014). For the following reasons, the motions are granted in part.

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" (22 NYCRR § 216.1 [a]).

The Appellate Division has emphasized that "there is a broad presumption that the public is entitled to access to judicial proceedings and court records" (Mosallem v Berenson, 76 A.D.3d 345, 348 [1st Dept 2010]). "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" (Danco Labs., Ltd. v Chemical Works of Gedeon Richter, Ltd., 274 A.D.2d 1, 6 [1st Dept 2000] [emphasis added]; see also, e.g. Gryphon Dom. VI, LLC v APP Intern. Fin. Co., B.V., 28 A.D.3d 322, 324 [1st Dept 2006]). "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'" (Maxim, Inc. v. Feifer, 145 A.D.3d 516, 517 [1st Dept 2016] [citations omitted]). Additionally, sealing and/or redacting is appropriate to the extent the documents sought to be sealed contain nonpublic information about confidential contracts or agreements with non-parties (see Mancheski v Gabelli Grp. Capital Partners, 39 A.D.3d 499, 502 [2d Dept 2007] ["[D]isclosure could impinge on the privacy rights of third parties who clearly are not litigants herein[.]"]).

The Court has reviewed Defendant's proposed sealing of the documents filed as NYSCEF Document Numbers 316, 383, and 388 (MS 14), as well as the targeted proposed redactions of the documents filed as NYSCEF Document Numbers 213, 219, 222, 227, and 246 (MS 12); 157 (MS 13); and 284, 286, 293, 331, 363, 367, 371, 398, and 399 (MS 14), and finds that they comport with the applicable sealing standard as laid out in Mosallem, 76 A.D.3d at 348-350, and its progeny, in that they contain sensitive and confidential business and financial information, including that of third parties.

However, Defendant's generalized assertions of good cause for the remaining Exhibits filed as NYSCEF Document Numbers 236 (MS 12); and 305, 318, 324, 334, 336, 338, 342, 345, 376, 378, and 396 (MS 14) do not establish a compelling justification for the complete sealing that is proposed. While portions of these documents may include confidential business and financial information, the proposed sealing is not adequately explained or justified. Thus, Array should propose and justify targeted redactions that satisfy the requirements of 22 NYCRR § 216 [a] and applicable case law. They may also provide evidence of the parties' reasonable expectation of confidentiality in the arbitration to support sealing of records and the public interest (or lack thereof) in the subject matter of the documents.

Any subsequent motion seeking to address the above concerns should adhere to this Part's Sealing Practices and Procedures (see https://www.nycourts.gov/LegacyPDFS/courts/comdiv/NY/PDFs/part3-sealing-practices.pdf), including the requirement to submit an affidavit based on personal knowledge attesting to the factual bases for redaction, unredacted copies of the documents with proposed targeted redactions in highlights, and a spreadsheet setting forth a non-conclusory good faith basis for each proposed redaction.

Accordingly, it is

ORDERED that Defendant's motions to seal and/or redact (MS 12, MS 13, MS 14) are granted in part, insofar as they seeks to seal the documents filed as NYSCEF Document Numbers 213, 219, 222, 227, and 246 (MS 12); 157 (MS 13); and 284, 286, 293, 316, 331, 363, 367, 371, 383, 388, 398, and 399 (MS 14), and is otherwise denied, without prejudice to filing a new motion within 21 days to redact confidential portions of the remaining Exhibits consistent with this Decision and Order and applicable case law; it is further

ORDERED that the County Clerk shall maintain the documents filed as NYSCEF Document Numbers 213, 219, 222, 227, and 246 (MS 12); 157 (MS 13); and 284, 286, 293, 316, 331, 363, 367, 371, 383, 388, 398, and 399 (MS 14) under seal, so that the documents may be accessible by the parties, their counsel, and authorized court personnel; it is further

ORDERED that, to the extent they have not yet done so, the parties shall file redacted copies of the documents filed as NYSCEF Document Numbers 213, 219, 222, 227, and 246 (MS 12); 157 (MS 13); and 284, 286, 293, 331, 363, 367, 371, 398, and 399 (MS 14); it is further

ORDERED that the documents filed as NYSCEF Document Numbers 236 (MS 12); and 305, 318, 324, 334, 336, 338, 342, 345, 376, 378, and 396 (MS 14) shall remain provisionally sealed for 21 days from the date of the Court's entry of this Decision and Order on NYSCEF. If the parties file a new motion (or new motions) to seal or redact confidential portions of the documents consistent with this Decision and Order within that 21-day period, the documents shall remain provisionally sealed pending resolution of that motion. If no such motion is filed within 21 days from the entry of this Decision and Order, the parties shall alert the County Clerk that the motion to seal the above-referenced documents has been denied by the Court and that the documents should be unsealed on NYSCEF; it is further

ORDERED that as it relates to future submissions, made by any party, that contain subject matter that the court has authorized to be sealed by this Decision and Order, parties may file a joint stipulation, to be So Ordered, which will authorize the filing of such future submissions to be filed in redacted form on NYSCEF, provided that an unredacted copy of any document is contemporaneously filed under seal; it is further

ORDERED that nothing in this Order shall be construed as authorizing the sealing or redactions of any documents or evidence to be offered at trial.

This constitutes the Decision and Order of the Court.