Barbera v. Grailed, Inc
- Lewis Liman
- 1:24-cv-03535
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Barbera v. Grailed, Judge Liman denied requests to seal filings, requiring public unredacted versions within two days.
The ruling affects Robert Barbera, Grailed, LLC, and the public’s access to the specified court filings. The defendant and plaintiff were each ordered to file public unredacted versions of designated documents within two days.
What happened
In Barbera v. Grailed, LLC, the plaintiff asked to keep certain documents and portions of filings under seal and to file other materials with redactions. The materials supported the defendant’s third motion for sanctions and the plaintiff’s opposition to that motion.
The plaintiff argued that the materials contained attorney-client communications, identities of non-parties, or information covered by non-disclosure agreements. The court found that the cited materials did not show protected legal advice, did not explain why references to non-parties required sealing, and did not identify sufficient privacy interests arising from the unspecified agreements.
The court denied the motions to seal and directed the parties to file public, unredacted versions of specified documents within two days. Judge Lewis J. Liman also directed the Clerk of Court to close the listed docket entries.
The detailed version
- Barbera v. Grailed, Inc · No. 1:24-cv-03535
- Lewis Liman
- Apr. 16, 2025
Background
The plaintiff asked the court for permission to keep certain documents or portions of documents under seal. The documents had been filed by the defendant in support of its third motion for sanctions. The plaintiff also asked to file his opposition memorandum, supporting declaration, and Exhibit 3 to that declaration in redacted form. The defendant had originally filed some documents under seal under the court’s individual rules.
The Court’s Analysis
The party seeking a sealing order bears the burden of showing that sealing is justified. The plaintiff identified three possible grounds: attorney-client privilege, references to non-parties, and non-disclosure agreements.
The court explained that attorney-client privilege protects confidential communications between a client and a lawyer made to obtain or provide legal assistance. A message is not privileged simply because it is sent between a lawyer and client. The court therefore found that communications such as a lawyer expressing holiday wishes, automatically generated emails showing that documents had been signed, and facts about retaining a law firm were not protected because they did not contain legal advice or reveal confidential legal strategy. The court also found that communications suggesting that the Liebowitz Law Firm, PLLC merged into Sanders Group were not protected.
The court recognized that non-parties’ privacy interests can strongly support sealing. But a reference to a non-party does not automatically justify redaction. The plaintiff did not explain the private nature of the information or the potential harm that disclosure could cause to the plaintiff or non-parties.
The court also rejected the reliance on non-disclosure agreements. The plaintiff did not identify the other parties to those agreements, explain their relevant contents, or specify what information he sought to redact because of them. The court stated that a confidentiality agreement, by itself, does not overcome the public interest in disclosure and transparency.
Ruling
The court denied the motions to seal because the documents were not attorney-client communications and the plaintiff had not adequately identified another basis for sealing them. Judge Lewis J. Liman directed the Clerk of Court to close Docket Nos. 53, 68, 71, and 74. The court ordered the defendant to file public unredacted versions of Docket Nos. 54–55 and the plaintiff to file public unredacted versions of Docket Nos. 75–77 within two days of the order.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.