Brawer v. Egan-Jones Ratings Company
- Analisa Torres
- 1:24-cv-01895
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Brawer v. Egan-Jones Ratings Company, Magistrate Judge Stewart D. Aaron required narrower sealing requests and a discovery-status letter.
The parties to Brawer v. Egan-Jones Ratings Company, particularly those responsible for the three documents filed under seal and for reporting on discovery.
What happened
Brawer v. Egan-Jones Ratings Company concerns three documents that were filed entirely under seal in the case. The order does not describe the underlying claims.
The court explained that sealed court records must be reviewed individually. If a record is a court document, the public generally has a right to access it, and sealing must be necessary to protect more important interests and limited to what is necessary.
The court ordered the parties to discuss the issue and file redacted versions of the three documents by August 16, 2024. The parties also must file a joint letter about the status of discovery by September 30, 2024. Magistrate Judge Stewart D. Aaron issued the order.
The detailed version
- Brawer v. Egan-Jones Ratings Company · No. 1:24-cv-01895
- Analisa Torres
- Aug. 7, 2024
Background
Three documents—ECF Nos. 21, 26, and 27—had been filed in their entirety under seal. The action had been referred to Magistrate Judge Stewart D. Aaron for general pretrial matters and for deciding the motion to seal. The opinion does not describe the parties’ underlying claims.
Legal standard
The court applied a three-step test for sealing a court record. First, it determines whether the record is a “judicial document,” meaning a document connected to the court’s exercise of judicial power. If so, a presumption of public access applies. The court then evaluates the strength of that presumption based on the document’s role in the case and balances it against interests that support confidentiality.
The court also stated that it must examine each document separately and make specific findings showing that sealing is necessary to protect higher values. Any sealing order must be narrowly tailored, meaning it may cover no more than necessary.
Order
The court directed the parties to meet and confer and, by August 16, 2024, file redacted versions of ECF Nos. 21, 26, and 27. The redactions were to be limited to portions that one or both parties contended should remain sealed. The court also allowed either or both parties to file a letter by that date supporting or opposing sealing of the redacted portions.
Separately, the court ordered the parties to file a joint letter about the status of discovery by September 30, 2024. The opinion does not state that the court granted or denied the motion to seal; instead, it required narrower redacted filings and invited additional arguments.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.