Opinion
22-CV-1194 (RA) (OTW)
05-20-2022
DANNI ZUO, Plaintiff, v. BLUECREST CAPITAL MANAGEMENT LTD. et al., Defendants.
ORDER
Ona T. Wang United States Magistrate Judge
The Court has reviewed Plaintiff's uncontested motion to seal the entire docket in this case. (ECF 29). For the reasons stated below, this request is GRANTED.
Judicial documents are those that are “relevant to the performance of the judicial function and useful in the judicial process.” United States v. Amodeo, 44 F.3d 141, 145 (2d. Cir. 1995). Plaintiff's voluntary dismissal of the case with prejudice rendered moot ECF 1 (the Complaint) and ECF 10 (Defense counsel's letter with corresponding exhibits). Accordingly, they are not “judicial documents” because they never culminated in a judicial decision. See Giuffre v. Maxwell, No. 15-CV-7433 (LAP), 2020 WL 133570, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. 2020) (Preska, J.).
Even if these documents were judicial documents, the balancing test applied weighs in favor of sealing the docket. See Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga, 435 F.3d 110, 119-120 (2d Cir. 2006) (describing the public presumption of access must be determined and weighed against factors including the privacy interests of those resisting disclosure). This case was dismissed in its infancy after embarrassing and untested accusations were levied on both sides. The parties' privacy interest outweigh the public's right to access, particularly because the public could be misled by these filings, having not been subject to any adversarial testing.
The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to close ECF 29, 30 and 31. The Clerk of Court is also directed to seal the docket in its entirety.
SO ORDERED.