Opinion
Index No. 657193/2020 MOTION SEQ. No. 025
10-01-2022
YASEMIN TEKINER, Plaintiff, v. BREMEN HOUSE INC., BREMEN HOUSE TEXAS, INC., GERMAN NEWS COMPANY, INC., GERMAN NEWS TEXAS, INC.,254-258 W. 35TH ST. LLC, BERRIN TEKINER, GONCA TEKINER, BILLUR AKIPEK, ZEYNEP TEKINER, Defendants.
Unpublished Opinion
MOTION DATE 07/29/2022
DECISION + ORDER ON MOTION
HON. JOEL M.COHEN:, Judge.
The following e-filed documents, listed by NYSCEF document number (Motion 025) 481, 483, 485, 487, 488, 489, 492, 493, 497, 498, 499, 500, 501, 502, 505, 507, 509, 510, 511, 512, 514, 515, 516, 517, 575 were read on this motion to SEAL
Defendants, Bremen House, Inc., German News Company, Inc., Berrin Tekiner, Gonca (Tekiner) Chelsea, and Billur Akipek ("Defendants") moves for an order sealing and/or redacting certain documents (NYSCEF Doc. Nos. 481, 483, 485, 487, 488, 489, 492, 493, 497, 498, 499, 500, 501, 502, 505, 507, 509, 510, 511, and 512) filed in connection with Mot. Seq. 022, which involves the parties' dispute as to whether Plaintiff could compel the production of certain documents labeled as privileged under Attorney-Client Privilege and to whether Plaintiff should be able to take discovery into the mental health and substance abuse and addiction issues of defendants Berrin Tekiner and Gonca Tekiner. No parties oppose this motion. For the following reasons, Defendants' motion is 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" (DancoLabs., Ltd. v Chemical Works of Gedeon Richter, Ltd., 214 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]). 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" (see, e.g., Maxim, 145 A.D.3d at 518; Gryphon, 28 A.D.3d at 324).
The Court has reviewed NYSCEF 481, 483, 485, 487, 497, 498, 499, 500, 502, 505, 507, 509, 510, and 511 and finds that they comport with the applicable sealing standards as laid out in Mosallem, 76 A.D.3d at 348-50, and its progeny, in that they contain sensitive non-public business information and/or sensitive medical information (see State v Bayrock Group LLC, 2017 NY Slip Op 30358[U], 4 [Sup Ct, NY County 2017]).
However, the Excerpts of Deposition of Zeynep Tekiner (NYSCEF 489) and Excerpts of Deposition of Billur Akipek (NYSCEF 488) should be unsealed as Defendants filed those documents with redactions.
Finally, Defendants are directed to file redacted versions of their brief in opposition (NYSCEF 512), the Akipek Affidavit (NYSCEF 492), the Berrin Affidavit (NYSCEF 493), and the Gonca Affidavit (NYSCEF 501) to appropriately redact confidential business information and/or sensitive medical information.
Accordingly, it is:
ORDERED that Mot. Seq. 025 is granted in part; it is further
ORDERED that the Clerk shall maintain NYSCEF Doc. Nos. 481, 483, 485, 487, 492, 493, 497, 498, 499, 500, 501, 502, 505, 507, 509, 510, 511, and 512 under seal, so that the documents may only be accessible by the parties, their counsel, and authorized court personnel; it is further
ORDERED that Defendant shall file redacted versions of NYSCEF, 492, 493, 501, and 512 in accordance with the Court's direction above within seven (7) business days of the date of this Order; it is further
ORDERED that the Clerk shall unseal NYSCEF Doc. Nos. 488 and 489; it is further
ORDERED as it related to future submissions, made by any party, that contain subject matter that the Court has authorized to be sealed by this 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 redacted document is contemporaneously filed under seal; and it is further
ORDERED that nothing in this Order shall be construed as authorizing the sealing or redaction of any documents or evidence to be offered at trial. This constitutes the Decision and Order of the Court.