Malherbe v. Oscar Gruss & Son, Inc.
- Garnett
- 1:21-cv-10903
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Malherbe v. Oscar Gruss & Son, Judge Garnett granted the defendant’s request to seal an exhibit because a nonparty’s privacy interests outweighed public access.
Oscar Gruss & Son, Inc.; the plaintiffs; the foreign nonparty whose confidential information appeared in the agreement; and members of the public seeking access to the court filing.
What happened
Malherbe v. Oscar Gruss & Son, Inc. involved the defendant’s request to file an 84-page agreement under seal. The agreement concerned the defendant and a foreign nonparty, and the defendant planned to rely on only one paragraph of it in support of its summary-judgment motion.
The defendant said the agreement contained confidential information about nonparty individuals’ share allocations, assets, and liabilities. The plaintiffs opposed sealing, arguing that the document was not confidential and did not warrant restricted access. The defendant argued that the nonparty’s privacy interests outweighed the public’s interest in seeing the rest of the agreement.
Judge Margaret M. Garnett granted the application to seal Exhibit A-5 to the defendant’s summary-judgment materials, finding that the nonparty’s privacy interests outweighed the public’s general right of access to court documents. The court also directed that Docket No. 98 be terminated.
The detailed version
- Malherbe v. Oscar Gruss & Son, Inc. · No. 1:21-cv-10903
- Garnett
- July 18, 2025
Background
The defendant asked for permission to file under seal Exhibit A-5 to the declaration of Danielle Landau, submitted in support of the defendant’s motion for summary judgment. The exhibit was an 84-page agreement involving the defendant and a foreign nonparty. According to the defendant, the agreement included nonparty individuals’ share allocations and information about assets and liabilities.
The defendant stated that it intended to rely on only one paragraph of the agreement and that the rest contained sensitive, nonpublic information that neither party intended to use and that was not relevant to the dispute. The defendant had also designated the agreement as confidential under the case’s protective order. The plaintiffs did not consent to sealing and argued that the document did not contain confidential information warranting restricted access.
Court’s reasoning
The court applied the general rule that the public has access to judicial documents—documents filed with the court in connection with a case. The court explained that this access may be limited when stronger interests justify confidentiality, including the privacy interests of people who are not parties to the case. It found that the privacy interests of a nonparty to the agreement outweighed the public’s interest in access to the document.
Ruling
Judge Margaret M. Garnett granted the application to file Exhibit A-5 under seal. The court also directed that Docket No. 98 be terminated. The opinion addressed the sealing request and did not decide the defendant’s underlying motion for summary judgment.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.