Opinion
23-CV-9304 (DEH)
03-22-2024
UNITED STATES, Plaintiff, v. THE M/Y AMADEA, A MOTOR YACHT BEARING INTERNATIONAL MARITIME ORGANIZATION NO. 1012531, Defendant.
ORDER
DALE E. HO, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
On March 14, 2024, the Government filed a letter-motion to compel responses to special interrogatories served on Claimants Eduard Khudainatov and Millemarin Investments Ltd. See ECF No. 67. In brief, the Government argues that Claimants have provided insufficient information regarding the potential sale of their ownership interest to an entity called Errigal Marine Ltd. Id. at 3. The same day, the Government filed a second letter-motion, seeking to file two of the attachments to its discovery letter-a transaction document related to the alleged sale to Errigal and Claimants' responses to the Government's interrogatories-under seal. See ECF No. 66. That letter stated that the attachments were being filed under seal at the request of Claimants and a third party. See id.
On March 19, 2024, Claimants filed a letter on the public docket regarding sealing. See ECF No. 73. Claimants argue that both documents should be filed under seal because they are not judicial documents subject to a presumption of public access, the documents are likely to be covered by an anticipated stipulated protective order, and public disclosure would prejudice Claimants because they “only present a partial picture of the facts in this case . . . that may be skewed by the media against Claimants' interests.” Id. at 3. On March 19, 2024, Evgeniy Kochman and Imperial Yachts SARL (together, “Imperial Yachts”) emailed a letter to Chambers in support of sealing the transaction document. That letter is appended to this Order as Exhibit A. Imperial Yachts argues that disclosure of the transaction document would be prejudicial because the document could be misinterpreted by the media. They also note that they are subject to OFAC sanctions, preventing them from presenting their version of events to correct any misinterpretations, and that disclosure may frustrate their attempts to have the sanctions rescinded. They also request sealing of their letter in support of sealing, “for the same reasons.”
On March 21, 2024, the Government emailed a letter to Chambers in opposition to the requests for sealing. That letter is also appended to this Order as Exhibit B.
It is hereby ORDERED that the motion to seal and Imperial Yachts' request for sealing are DENIED. The documents submitted in connection with the parties' discovery dispute are judicial documents, albeit ones subject to a diminished right of public access. “[T]he presumption of public access in filings submitted in connection with discovery disputes . . . is generally somewhat lower than the presumption applied to material introduced at trial, or in connection with dispositive motions.” Brown v. Maxwell, 929 F.3d 41, 50 (2d Cir. 2019). “[W]hile a court must still articulate specific and substantial reasons for sealing such materials, the reasons usually need not be as compelling as those required to seal summary judgment filings.” Id.
Claimants and Imperial Yachts do not articulate such “specific and substantial reasons” for sealing. In substance, they argue that they will suffer negative media attention from release of these documents. However, Claimants have appeared and vigorously contested the Government's allegations and both Kochman and Imperial Yachts SARL are described in the First Amended Complaint, as is their designation by OFAC. See ECF No. 37, ¶¶ 13, 14. The parties seeking confidential treatment do not identify how disclosure of these particular documents would cause any harm not already caused by the Government's prior, public allegations. See Grossberg v. Fox Corp., No. 23 Civ. 2368, 2023 WL 2612262, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 23, 2023) (denying sealing because “the cat is now firmly out of the bag[,] given that the Complaint is widely and publicly accessible”). Additionally, while the parties are encouraged to agree upon a stipulated protective order to facilitate discovery, even if such an agreement were in place, the Court retains discretion as to whether to afford documents confidential treatment. See Bernsten v. O'Reilly, 307 F.Supp.3d 161, 168-69 (S.D.N.Y. 2018) (“Courts in this District have long held that bargained-for confidentiality does not overcome the presumption of access to judicial documents.” (collecting cases)). Finally, the Court notes that the press attention to this case supports, rather than undercuts, the need for public access. See United States v. Amodeo, 71 F.3d 1044, 1051 (2d Cir. 1995) (“[T]he presumption of public access is based on the need for the public monitoring of federal courts[.]”).
To the extent that the parties seeking confidential treatment warn of misinterpretation by the media or the public, the Second Circuit has stated:
[P]leadings, complaints, and briefs-while supposedly based on underlying evidentiary material-can be misleading. Such documents sometimes draw dubious inferences from already questionable material or present ambiguous material as definitive. Moreover, court filings are, in some respects, particularly susceptible to fraud. (. . .)
We have long noted that the press plays a vital role in ensuring the public right of access and in enhancing the quality and safeguards the integrity of the factfinding process. When faithfully observing its best traditions, the print and electronic media contributes to public understanding of the rule of law and validates its claim of functioning as surrogates for the public. At the same time, the media does the public a profound disservice when it reports on parties' allegations uncritically.
Brown, 929 F.3d at 52-53.
The parties are reminded that all communications with Chambers should be through public filings on ECF, absent compelling reasons to the contrary.
The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to close the motions at ECF Nos. 66 and 73 and to unseal ECF No. 67.
SO ORDERED.
(EXHIBIT A OMITTED)
(EXHIBIT B OMITTED)