Opinion
23-cv-2652 (LJL)
07-15-2024
LAUREN SPENCER-SMITH, Plaintiff, v. DAVID M. EHRLICH et al., Defendants.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
LEWIS J. LIMAN, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
Defendants have submitted a letter motion requesting redaction of certain portions of the transcript of the oral argument that took place before the Court on June 3, 2024. Dkt. No. 62. Plaintiffs have neither opposed nor consented to the request.
Under both the First Amendment and the common law, “there is a presumption of immediate public access to judicial documents.” Lohnn v. Int'l Bus. Machs. Corp., 2022 WL 36420, at *6 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 4, 2022), appeal withdrawn, 2022 WL 18232089 (2d Cir. July 25, 2022). That presumption ensures the legitimacy and accountability of the courts, as “professional and public monitoring is an essential feature of democratic control,” without which “the public could have no confidence in the conscientiousness, reasonableness, or honesty of judicial proceedings.” Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga, 435 F.3d 110, 119 (2d Cir. 2006) (quoting United States v. Amodeo (Amodeo II), 71 F.3d 1044, 1048 (2d Cir.1995)); see also Joy v. North, 692 F.2d 880, 893 (2d Cir. 1982) (“An adjudication is a formal act of government, the basis of which should, absent exceptional circumstances, be subject to public scrutiny.”). But monitoring is simply “not possible without access to testimony and documents that are used in the performance of Article III functions.” Lugosch, 435 F.3d at 119 (quoting Amodeo II, 71 F.3d at 1048).
In determining whether to permit the sealing of records filed in federal court, the Court engages in a three-step analysis. “First, the court determines whether the record at issue is a ‘judicial document'-a document to which the presumption of public access attaches.” Mirlis v. Greer, 952 F.3d 51, 59 (2d Cir. 2020). Second, “if the record sought is determined to be a judicial document, the court proceeds to determine the weight of the presumption of access to that document.” Id. (quotation omitted). Third, “the court must identify all of the factors that legitimately counsel against disclosure of the judicial document, and balance those factors against the weight properly accorded the presumption of access.” Id.; see Stafford v. Int'l Bus. Machs. Corp., 78 F.4th 62, 70 (2d Cir. 2023), cert. denied, 144 S.Ct. 1011 (2024).
Defendants have requested that certain portions of a transcript of a public court proceeding be redacted on the basis that “some financial information concerning Ms. SpencerSmith's entertainment contracts was revealed,” that such amounts are “not public information and implicate privacy, proprietary, and business interests, which outweighs the presumption in favor of public access,” and that the requested redactions are “narrowly tailored.” Dkt. No. 62 at ECF P. 1. The transcript of the June 3 hearing, which was oral argument on Plaintiff's motion to amend, is clearly a judicial document to which the presumption of public access applies. The statements made at that oral argument were statements made in open court. “The transcript of a proceeding is so closely related to the ability to attend the proceeding itself that maintaining secrecy is appropriate only if closing the courtroom was appropriate.” Newsday LLC v. County of Nassau, 730 F.3d 156, 165 (2d Cir. 2013); see also Kairam v. West Side GI, LLC, 2018 WL 6712723, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 29, 2018) (declining to seal portions of oral argument transcript).
Defendants cite Securities and Exchange Commission v. Ripple Labs, Inc. in support of their motion, but that case dealt with certain summary judgment materials, not a transcript of a public court proceeding. 2023 WL 3477552, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. 2023). Moreover, that case noted that “although the protection of sensitive, confidential, or proprietary business information is a countervailing interest that can militate in favor of sealing, conclusory statements that documents contain confidential business information are insufficient to justify sealing.” Id. (internal citations omitted). Defendants have not provided anything other than conclusory statements and the Court therefore cannot make the required findings under Lugosch that sealing is necessary, see, e.g., Brinks Global Services USA, Inc. v. Bonita Pearl, Inc., 2023 WL 4399042, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. July 6, 2023), particularly where redactions are being sought on a transcript of a public court proceeding.
The motion to seal is DENIED.
The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to close Dkt. No. 62.
SO ORDERED.