Nixon v. The Northstar Group, Inc.
- John Cronan
- 1:23-cv-05218
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 8
In Nixon v. Northstar Source Group, Judge Cronan denied without prejudice Nixon’s sealing request, allowing refiling after the request failed to meet required standards.
Roderick Nixon’s request to keep Exhibits 10 through 12 and 14 through 22 from public filing was denied without prejudice. The defendants’ confidentiality designations did not by themselves prevent possible disclosure of the documents.
What happened
In Nixon v. Northstar Source Group, Roderick Nixon asked to seal exhibits filed with his motion for summary adjudication. The exhibits included business records, emails, policies, contracts, and deposition excerpts that defendants had marked confidential.
The court denied the request without prejudice because it did not explain specifically how each sealing or redaction request met the required legal standards. The court also said that labeling documents confidential, by itself, was not enough. Nixon could file a new request by February 7, 2025; otherwise, the documents might be unsealed.
Judge John P. Cronan also directed the Clerk of Court to close Docket Number 43. The order addressed only the sealing request, not the underlying motion for summary adjudication.
The detailed version
- Nixon v. The Northstar Group, Inc. · No. 1:23-cv-05218
- John Cronan
- Jan. 7, 2025
Background
Roderick Nixon asked the court to file Exhibits 10 through 12 and 14 through 22 under seal in connection with his motion for summary adjudication. The request stated that the materials had been designated confidential under the parties’ stipulated protective order. The materials included engagement data from Instagram posts, internal copyright guidelines and policies, emails, staffing information, contracts, licensing information, business practices, and selected pages from a deposition transcript taken in another matter.
The request relied in part on Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c)(1)(G), which permits protection of confidential commercial information. The request also stated that defendants were not expected to object because most of the materials were defendants’ records marked confidential.
Court’s Reasoning
The court denied the request without prejudice. It held that the request did not specifically explain how each proposed sealing or redaction satisfied the standards established in Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga and required by Individual Civil Rule 4(B)(ii). The court further stated that a party’s designation of a document as confidential does not, by itself, establish that sealing is appropriate.
Disposition
The request to file the documents under seal was denied without prejudice. Nixon was permitted to refile the request on or before February 7, 2025. The court stated that failing to renew the request by that date may result in the relevant documents being unsealed. The Clerk of Court was directed to close Docket Number 43. The order did not decide the merits of Nixon’s underlying motion for summary adjudication.
Read the full 8-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.