Opinion
20-cv-8177 (AJN)
08-18-2023
Karen M. Suber, Plaintiff, v. VVP Services, LLC, et al., Defendants.
ORDER
ALISON J. NATHAN, CIRCUIT JUDGE, SITTING BY DESIGNATION
The Court assumes familiarity with both the factual and procedural background underlying this present sealing dispute. See Suber v. VVP Servs., LLC, No. 20-cv-8177 (AJN), 2021 WL 4429237, at *1-3 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 27, 2021) (Dkt. No. 143); Suber v. VVP Servs., LLC, No. 20-CV-8177 (AJN), 2023 WL 4817551, at *1-3 (S.D.N.Y. July 27, 2023) (Dkt. No. 172).
On July 27, 2023, the Court directed the parties to file responses to address the remaining live issues concerning the sealing disputes over Exhibits 24 and 26. Dkt. No. 172. On August 3, 2023, Defendants filed a letter proposing redactions to the exhibits and justifying such proposed redactions. Dkt. No. 175. On August 10, 2023, Plaintiff Karen Suber filed a letter opposing Defendants' proposed redactions to Exhibit 24. Dkt. No. 178.
In support of her letter, Plaintiff filed a sealed declaration on an ex parte basis. Dkt. No. 177. Plaintiff's letter also cites to another sealed declaration that she filed on an ex parte basis in 2021. Dkt. No. 60. “Ex parte submissions are highly disfavored.” Magee v. Walt Disney Co., No. 19-CV-10274 (AJN), 2020 WL 6047428, at *4 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 13, 2020); Schiller v. City of New York, No. 04CIV.7921RJSJCF, 2008 WL 1777848, at *5 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 14, 2008) (“[T]he overwhelming weight of authority favors the view that a court's reliance on ex parte, in camera submissions is strongly disfavored.”). Plaintiff has “failed to present any persuasive legal authority or compelling justification” to show that ex parte submissions are warranted here Schiller, 2008 WL 1777848, at *3; see also United States v. Abuhamra, 389 F.3d 309, 328 (2d Cir. 2004). Nor has Plaintiff demonstrated that any “countervailing factors” override the strong presumption of public access to judicial documents as to justify sealing here. See Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga, 435 F.3d 110, 120 (2d Cir. 2006).
It is therefore ORDERED that no document previously submitted by Plaintiff to the Court ex parte will be considered by the Court unless properly filed on the public docket no later than August 25, 2023.
It is further ORDERED that Defendants must submit any reply no later than September 1st, 2023. In their reply, Defendants shall address Plaintiff's privilege waiver argument and objections to Defendants' proposed redactions to Exhibit 24.
SO ORDERED.