Universal Entertainment Corporation v. Alexander Eiseman
- Lorna Schofield
- 1:23-cv-02250
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
In Universal Entertainment v. Alexander Eiseman, Judge Schofield granted a motion to seal materials from an unresolved discovery dispute.
The parties and members of the public seeking access to the materials at Docket No. 68 were affected; those materials remain under seal.
What happened
In Universal Entertainment Corporation v. Alexander Eiseman, the defendants asked the court to seal Exhibits A through G attached to a letter about a discovery dispute. The plaintiffs later voluntarily dismissed the action without prejudice and asked that the exhibits remain sealed.
The court explained that filing a document does not automatically make it available to the public. A document generally receives a presumption of public access only if it is relevant to the court’s decision-making. Here, the exhibits accompanied a request for a conference about a possible discovery motion, but the motion to compel was never filed and no court decision about the parties’ rights was made.
Judge Lorna G. Schofield granted the motion to seal. The materials at Docket No. 68 must remain under seal.
The detailed version
- Universal Entertainment Corporation v. Alexander Eiseman · No. 1:23-cv-02250
- Lorna Schofield
- May 31, 2024
Background
The case’s scheduling order required the parties to complete fact discovery by September 22, 2023. The court later extended that deadline to December 22, 2023. A protective order allowed the parties to designate sensitive discovery documents as confidential.
On November 16, 2023, Defendants submitted a letter requesting a pre-motion conference about a discovery dispute and filed a motion to seal Exhibits A through G attached to that letter. The exhibits came from Defendants’ document production. Although the motion to seal said the exhibits were covered by the protective order, it also stated that Defendants did not believe they should remain sealed. The court directed Plaintiffs to respond. Before Plaintiffs responded to the discovery letter and before the court ruled on the conference request, Plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed the action without prejudice. Plaintiffs then filed a letter asking that the exhibits remain sealed. Defendants filed no further briefing on the motion to seal.
Legal Standard
The court applied a three-step inquiry governing requests to seal documents. First, the court asks whether the material is a “judicial document” subject to the presumed right of public access. A document is not a judicial document merely because it was filed with the court; it must be relevant to the court’s exercise of its judicial function and useful in the judicial process.
The court noted that pleadings are generally judicial records, but exhibits are judicial documents only when they are currently relevant to the judicial function. Judicial power exists in the context of a real dispute in which the court can determine the parties’ substantive rights.
Court’s Analysis
The court found that no motion requiring a determination of the parties’ substantive rights had been filed. The exhibits were submitted with a letter requesting a pre-motion discovery conference. Although the letter said Defendants intended to seek a motion compelling document production, that motion was never filed because the case was dismissed. As a result, the exhibits were attached to an unadjudicated motion-related submission in a resolved case and were not judicial documents subject to the presumed right of public access.
Disposition
Judge Lorna G. Schofield ordered that the motion to seal was GRANTED. The materials at Docket No. 68 must remain under seal.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.