Parker v. Bursor
- Clarke
- 1:24-cv-00245
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Parker v. Bursor, Judge Clarke denied defendants’ stay request but extended restrictions on unsealing documents until April 25, 2025.
The defendants’ request to pause the sealing ruling was denied, while public access to the judicial documents remained subject to the restriction through April 25, 2025.
What happened
In Parker v. Bursor, the defendants asked the court to pause an earlier order denying their request to keep documents sealed while they appealed to the Second Circuit. The plaintiff did not respond on time to the stay request.
The court applied four factors, including the likelihood of success on appeal, irreparable harm, harm to other parties, and the public interest. It found that the defendants had not shown they were likely to win their appeal. Although unsealing might cause reputational harm, the court said that harm did not outweigh the public’s First Amendment right to access judicial documents.
Judge Jessica G. L. Clarke denied the defendants’ motion to stay. At the defendants’ request, she extended the restriction on unsealing the complaint, related documents, and the earlier opinion and order until April 25, 2025, so the defendants could seek an emergency stay from the Second Circuit.
The detailed version
- Parker v. Bursor · No. 1:24-cv-00245
- Clarke
- Apr. 9, 2025
Background
On April 1, 2025, Scott Bursor and Bursor & Fisher, P.A. moved to stay—that is, temporarily pause—the court’s Opinion and Order denying their motion to seal while they pursued an appeal to the Second Circuit. The earlier sealing dispute concerned the Complaint, related documents, and the Opinion and Order at ECF No. 345. The court gave Angelica Parker an opportunity to respond, but she did not respond by the deadline. The court noted that she requested an extension on the deadline date in violation of its Individual Rules.
Legal standard
The court stated that a party seeking a stay pending appeal must address four factors: whether it is likely to succeed on appeal, whether it will suffer irreparable injury without a stay, whether the stay would substantially harm other interested parties, and where the public interest lies. A stay is discretionary rather than automatic, and the party requesting it bears a heavy burden.
Court’s reasoning
The court held that the defendants did not meet that burden. It said the sealing issue was not a close question when considered by the court and Judge Tarnofsky in the earlier Opinion and Order and Report and Recommendation. The court acknowledged that unsealing could cause the defendants reputational injury, but concluded that this injury did not outweigh the public’s First Amendment right of access to judicial documents.
Disposition
Judge Jessica G. L. Clarke denied the defendants’ motion to stay. At the defendants’ request, the court extended its restriction on unsealing the Complaint, related documents, and the Opinion and Order at ECF No. 345 until April 25, 2025. The court said this extension would allow the defendants to seek an emergency stay and obtain a ruling from the Second Circuit. The Clerk of Court was directed to terminate ECF Nos. 353 and 363.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.