Opinion
No. 657193/2020 MOTION SEQ. No. 052 055 057
03-29-2023
YASEMIN TEKINER, Plaintiff, v. BREMEN HOUSE INC., GERMAN NEWS COMPANY, INC., BERRIN TEKINER, GONCA TEKINER, BILLUR AKIPEK, ZEYNEP TEKINER, Defendants.
Unpublished Opinion
DECISION + ORDER ON MOTION
JOEL M. COHEN, J.S.C.
The following e-filed documents, listed by NYSCEF document number (Motion 052) 1361, 1362, 1363, 1377,1406 were read on this motion to SEAL
The following e-filed documents, listed by NYSCEF document number (Motion 055) 1371, 1372, 1402 were read on this motion to SEAL
The following e-filed documents, listed by NYSCEF document number (Motion 057) 1398, 1399, 1404 were read on this motion to SEAL
These motions are brought by Parker Ibrahim & Berg LLP ("PIB"), Foley Hoag LLP ("Foley"), and Kahn & Goldberg, LLP's ("K&G") (collectively, "Counsel"), counsel for Plaintiffs Yasemin Tekiner ("Yasemin") and Zeynep Tekiner ("Zeynep"), seeking an order permitting them to (i) electronically file on NYSCEF their motions to withdraw as co-counsel of record to Yasemin and Zeynep (the "Withdrawal Motions") and to redact from such motion any and all privileged and confidential information; and (ii) permitting them to submit confidentially to the Chambers of the Honorable Joel M. Cohen an unredacted hard copy of such motion and to serve such unredacted motion via email on co-counsel, with any responses or reply to the withdrawal motions to be filed and submitted in the same manner. No parties have opposed these motions. For the following reasons, the motions are granted in part.
Parker Ibrahim & Berg LLP and Foley Hoag LLP represent Yasemin, and Kahn & Goldberg, LLP represent Zeynep.
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 Court has considered this application in connection with the Withdrawal Motions and concludes that the requested relief is appropriate given that these motions present an unusual circumstance, in which court papers may include privileged and confidential information relating solely to the request to withdraw as counsel. Such documents and communications should not be revealed to Defendants' counsel since such disclosure could prejudice Yasemin and Zeynep. Accordingly, each Counsel's moving brief and affidavit are properly redacted (see NYSCEF 1391 and 1397 [PIB's affidavit and moving brief]; NYSCEF 1369 and 1370 [Foley's affidavit and moving brief]; NYSCEF 1408 and 1425 [K&G's affidavit and moving brief]).
However, while portions of the Exhibits may well include communications that should be redacted due to attorney-client privilege, both PIB and K&G filed exhibits that are completely redacted (see NYSCEF 1382-1396 [exhibits A-O] and NYSCEF 1409-1424 [exhibits A-P]), which amounts to wholesale sealing all of exhibits filed in connection with the Withdrawal Motions. In view of the admonition that sealing of court records must be "narrowly tailored to serve compelling objectives," (Danco, 21A A.D.2d at 6), PIB and K&G will need to re-file their exhibits to the Withdraw Motions with targeted redactions. Counsel is directed to comply with this directive within ten (10) days of the date of this Order.
Foley has not filed any exhibits in connection with its motion to withdraw (Mot. Seq. 054).
Accordingly, it is:
ORDERED that Parker Ibrahim & Berg LLP's motion (Mot. Seq. 052) is GRANTED IN PART, subject to PIB complying with the Court's requirement to re-file the exhibits filed in connection with Mot. Seq. 058 with targeted redactions within ten (10) days of the date of this Order; it is further
ORDERED that Foley Hoag LLP's motion (Mot. Seq. 055) is GRANTED, subject to Foley complying with the Court's requirement to file any future exhibits in connection with Mot. Seq. 054 with targeted redactions; it is further
ORDERED that Kahn & Goldberg, LLP's motion (Mot. Seq. 057) is GRANTED IN PART, subject to K&G complying with the Court's requirement to re-file the exhibits filed in connection with Mot. Seq. 059 with targeted redactions within ten (10) days of the date of this Order; 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.