Opinion
Index No. 654461/2020 Motion Seq. No. 006 007
12-28-2023
PEARL STREET CO-INVEST I, LLC, ARENA INVESTORS LP, Plaintiffs, v. MAPR (ABC) LLC, ARMANINO LLP, and ANDREW HYDE, Defendants.
Unpublished Opinion
MOTION DATE 08/28/2023, 07/15/2023
DECISION+ ORDER ON MOTION
JOEL M. COHEN, J.S.C.
The following e-filed documents, listed by NYSCEF document number (Motion 006) 359, 360, 361 were read on this motion to SEAL
The following e-filed documents, listed by NYSCEF document number (Motion 007) 366, 367, 368, 369 were read on this motion to SEAL
The parties seek orders sealing and/or redacting exhibits and documents that were filed in connection with this proceeding. Specifically, plaintiffs Pearl Street Co-Invest I, LLC (“Pearl Street”) and Arena Investors LP (“Arena”) (together, “Plaintiffs”) seek sealing and/or redaction of the documents filed as NYSCEF Document Numbers 279, 282, 283, 284, 285, 286, 287, 288, 289, 290, 291, 292, 293, 294, 295, 296, 297, 298, 299, 300, 301, 302, 303, 304, 305, 306, 307, 308, 309, 310, 311, 312, 313, 314, 316, 317, 318, 320, 321, 322, 323, 324, 325, 326, 327, 328, 329, 330, 331, 332, 333, 334, 335, 336, 337, 338, 339, 340, 341, 342, 343, 344, 345, 346, 347, 348, 349, 350, 351, 352, 353, 354, 355, 356, 357, 358, 362, and 363 in connection with Motion Sequence 006. Defendants MapR (ABC) LLC (“MapR ABC”), Armanino LLP (“Armanino”), and Andrew Hyde (together, “Defendants”) seek redaction of the documents filed as NYSCEF Document Numbers 364 and 365 in connection with Motion Sequence 007. For the following reason's, Plaintiffs motion (MS 006) is granted in part and denied in part without prejudice, and Defendants' motion (MS 007) is granted.
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]).
The Court has reviewed the parties' proposed sealing of the documents filed as NYSCEF Document Number 326, as well as the targeted redactions the proposed in the documents filed as NYSCEF Document Numbers 279, 321, 328, 329, 352, 355, 358, 363, 364, and 365, 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. Further, these Exhibits are properly sealed and/or redacted to the extent they contain nonpublic information about confidential contracts or agreements with non-parties to this instant case (Mancheski v Gabelli Grp. Capital Partners, 39 A.D.3d 499, 502 [2d Dept 2007] ["[Disclosure could impinge on the privacy rights of third parties who clearly are not litigants herein[.]"]).
However, Plaintiffs' generalized assertions of good cause for the remaining Exhibits filed as NYSCEF Document Numbers 320, 322, 323, 324, 325, 327, 330, 331, 332, 333, 334, 336, 337, 338, 339, 340, 341, 342, 343, 344, 345, 346, 347, 348, 349, 350, 351, 353, 354, and 356 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, Plaintiffs should propose and justify targeted redactions that satisfy the requirements of 22 NYCRR § 216 [a] and applicable case law.
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 and a spreadsheet setting forth a non-conclusory good faith basis for each proposed redaction.
Accordingly, it is
ORDERED that Plaintiffs' motion to seal/redact (MS 006) is granted in part insofar as it seeks to seal the documents filed as NYSCEF Document Number 279, 321, 326, 328, 329, 352, 355, 358, and 363, and insofar as it seeks to redact the documents filed as NYSCEF Document Numbers 280, 283, 290, 291, 313, 317, 335, 357, and 362; 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 Defendants' motion to seal/redact (MS 007) is granted insofar as it seeks to redact portions of the documents filed as NYSCEF Document Numbers 364 and 365; it is further
ORDERED that the County Clerk shall maintain the documents filed as NYSCEF Document Numbers 279, 321, 326, 328, 329, 352, 355, 358, 363, 364, and 365 under seal, so that the documents may be accessible by the parties, their counsel, and authorized court personnel; it is further
ORDERED that the documents filed as NYSCEF Document Numbers 280, 283, 290, 291, 313, 335, 357, and 362 shall remain on the public docket in redacted form; it is further
ORDERED that Defendants shall upload redacted copies of the documents filed as NYSCEF Document Numbers 364 and 365 to NYSCEF, and Plaintiffs shall upload a redacted copy of the document filed as NYSCEF Document Number 317, each in connection with the proper Motion Sequence number; it is further
ORDERED that the documents filed as NYSCEF Document Numbers 320, 322, 323, 324, 325, 327, 330, 331, 332, 333, 334, 336, 337, 338, 339, 340, 341, 342, 343, 344, 345, 346, 347, 348, 349, 350, 351, 353, 354, and 356 shall remain provisionally sealed for 21 days from the date of the Court's entry of this Decision and Order on NYSCEF. If any party files a new motion 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 that contain subject matter that the court has authorized to be sealed by this Decision and Order which are made by any party, the parties may file a joint stipulation, to be So Ordered, which will authorize the filing of such future submissions to be filed in sealed and/or redacted form on NYSCEF , provided that an unredacted copy of any document is contemporaneously filed with a request to seal.
This constitutes the Decision and Order of the Court.