Beter v. Baughman
- Gregory Woods
- 1:24-cv-00079
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Beter v. Baughman, Judge Tarnofsky granted Beter’s request to seal discovery materials, limiting access to case participants and court staff.
Petra Beter’s confidential discovery materials will remain sealed during the discovery phase, with access for case participants and court staff; the Bloomberg parties are involved in the underlying discovery dispute.
What happened
Beter v. Baughman concerns Plaintiff Petra Beter’s request to seal a confidential exhibit supporting her request for a conference about outstanding discovery subpoenaed from the Bloomberg parties and about their document searches.
Beter argued that the exhibit should remain sealed under the case’s confidentiality and protective order and because discovery materials generally receive a lower presumption of public access before trial.
Judge Robyn F. Tarnofsky granted Beter’s application. She authorized sealing the discovery materials during the discovery phase and directed that the documents be accessible to case participants and court staff.
The detailed version
- Beter v. Baughman · No. 1:24-cv-00079
- Gregory Woods
- July 22, 2025
Background
Plaintiff Petra Beter moved to file a confidential exhibit under seal. The exhibit supported her request for a pre-motion conference concerning outstanding discovery subpoenaed from the Bloomberg parties and a certification regarding the searches conducted for those documents. Beter said the exhibit contained evidence challenging the Bloomberg parties’ assertion that no additional responsive documents existed.
Beter relied on the parties’ confidentiality agreement and protective order, as well as Second Circuit decisions addressing public access to court records. She argued that discovery materials generally play little role in the court’s formal decision-making during the discovery phase and therefore carry a lower presumption of public access.
Ruling
Judge Robyn F. Tarnofsky granted Beter’s application to file documents under seal, identified as ECF 223. The court permitted the discovery materials to remain sealed during the discovery phase. The Clerk of Court was requested to terminate ECF 223 and seal the documents filed at ECF 224, with access limited to case participants and court staff.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.