Opinion
Index No. 451625/2020 Motion Seq. Nos. 064 065
12-08-2023
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, BY LETITIA JAMES, ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Plaintiff, v. THE NATIONAL RIFLE ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA, WAYNE LAPIERRE, WILSON PHILLIPS, JOHN FRAZER, JOSHUA POWELL, Defendants.
Unpublished Opinion
MOTION DATE 05/12/2023
DECISION+ ORDER ON MOTION
JOEL M. COHEN JUDGE
The following e-filed documents, listed by NYSCEF document number (Motion 064) 1934, 1935, 1936, 1937, 1939, 1944, 1945, 1946, 1961, 1965, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2201 were read on this motion to SEAL
The following e-filed documents, listed by NYSCEF document number (Motion 065) 1938, 1947, 1948 1949,1962,1966,2009 were read on this motion to SEAL
Defendant the National Rifle Association's (the "NRA") motion to seal or redact, as joined in part by Defendant Wayne LaPierre ("LaPierre"), is granted in part without prejudice to Plaintiff the People of the State of New York, by Letitia James, Attorney General of the State of New York (the "OAG") seeking to unseal at a later stage of these proceedings.
In Motion Sequence No. 64, the NRA moves to seal or redact (i) an expert submission by the NRA in a confidential arbitration proceeding; (ii) a communication regarding an human resources matter concerning a former employee of the NRA, and (iii) passages in the OAG's proposed expert witness reports revealing confidential information pertaining to (A) the terms of a confidential settlement agreement; (B) safety and security of an NRA employee; and (C) identity of whistle blowers and details of their reports. In Motion Sequence No. 65, Defendant LaPierre joins in that branch of the NRA's motion seeking to seal certain passages of the OAG's expert reports.
Following substantial efforts by the parties and the Court's staff, the NRA agreed to withdraw certain of its requests to seal and the OAG agreed to withdraw portions of its opposition (NYSCEF 2204 [October 4, 2023 Stipulation and Order]). Additionally, motions to bifurcate and preclude are pending before the Court (Mot. Seq. Nos. 71-75). The resolution of those motions may impact the Court's analysis as to whether sealing is appropriate. Accordingly, the OAG may move to unseal the documents at a later stage of these proceedings.
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 documents submitted by the parties and grants the NRA's motion (as joined, in part, by Defendant LaPierre) to seal or redact as amended by the October 4, 2023 Stipulation and Order. The NRA has not sought wholesale sealing of documents and has instead, where appropriate, proposed targeted redactions. Accordingly, the Court finds that limited sealing and targeted redactions are appropriate. As set forth below, however, the Court's ruling is subject to review following the resolution of the aforementioned pre-trial motions and at trial.
Accordingly, it is:
ORDERED that Defendant the NRA's motion to seal GRANTED IN PART and the NRA's proposed sealing and redactions, to the extent not withdrawn (NYSCEF 2204), are accepted without prejudice to the OAG seeking to unseal at a later stage of these proceedings; it is further
ORDERED that Defendant Wayne LaPierre's motion is GRANTED IN PART and the NRA's proposed sealing and redactions, to the extent not withdrawn (NYSCEF 2204), are accepted without prejudice to the OAG seeking to unseal at a later stage of these proceedings; it is further
ORDERED that the County Clerk shall maintain NYSCEF Document Numbers 1837, 1841, 1845, 1849, 1855, 1861, 1898 in their current form; it is further
ORDERED that the relevant documents be filed on the public NYSCEF docket by the NRA with the redactions permitted by this order; 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 redactions of any documents or evidence to be offered at trial.
This constitutes the Decision and Order of the Court.