Dixon v. Reid
- Vargas
- 1:23-cv-09878
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Dixon v. Reid, Judge Vargas granted in part and denied in part motions to seal materials filed with a partial summary-judgment motion.
The order affects Drew Dixon and Antonio Marquis “L.A.” Reid, whose summary-judgment filings must be publicly filed with only the permitted redactions or sealing, as well as members of the public seeking access to those judicial documents.
What happened
In Dixon v. Reid, the parties asked the court to redact or seal documents filed in connection with the defendant’s motion for partial summary judgment, including legal briefs, factual statements, declarations, and exhibits.
The court allowed some protections but rejected most of the requested redactions and sealing. It permitted sealing an excerpt from the plaintiff’s unpublished memoir and related references, and permitted redaction of a personal email address and annual salary information. The remaining materials were to be filed with only those permitted redactions.
Judge Vargas ruled that the materials were judicial documents with a strong public-access presumption because they were submitted for a summary-judgment motion. She directed the Clerk to terminate ECF Nos. 111 and 141.
The detailed version
- Dixon v. Reid · No. 1:23-cv-09878
- Vargas
- Aug. 7, 2025
Background
The parties asked the court to redact or seal information submitted with Defendant Antonio Marquis “L.A.” Reid’s motion for partial summary judgment. The requested materials included memoranda of law, a Local Rule 56.1 Statement and Counterstatement, supporting and opposing declarations, and exhibits. The requests were filed at ECF Nos. 111, 127, and 141.
Legal standard
The court explained that the public generally has a right to access judicial documents under both the common law and the First Amendment. Documents submitted for consideration on a summary-judgment motion are judicial documents, and the presumption of public access is at its strongest for those materials. Sealing is allowed only when the court makes specific findings that sealing is essential to protect a higher value and is narrowly tailored to that interest. The court also considers competing interests such as privacy and business-record confidentiality.
Ruling
The court found that the parties had not shown compelling reasons to protect most of the requested information. The materials concerning Plaintiff Drew Dixon’s employment agreements and entitlement to commissions were central to the court’s consideration of the summary-judgment motion. Although the court recognized Dixon’s privacy interests concerning allegations of sexual assault, harassment, or violence, it found that the information sought was largely general in nature and did not contain more graphic details than those already in the complaint.
The court granted in part and denied in part the motions to seal. It permitted sealing Exhibit 1 to the Korn Declaration, ECF No. 114, and quotations or references to that exhibit in the moving papers. The court found that the excerpt from Dixon’s unpublished memoir involved substantial privacy concerns concerning an unrelated sexual assault and was only marginally relevant to the issues in the summary-judgment motion. The court also permitted redaction of the personal email address in Exhibit 10 to the Korn Declaration and the annual salary information in Exhibits 6 and 7.
The parties were directed to file the relevant documents on the docket with only the permitted redactions. The Clerk of Court was directed to terminate ECF Nos. 111 and 141.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.