41-45 Property Owner, LLC v. CDM1, LLC
- Lorna Schofield
- 1:22-cv-08634
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In 41-45 Property Owner v. CDM1, Judge Schofield ordered sealed trial witness lists opened because no reason supported keeping them secret.
The parties and members of the public seeking access to the trial witness lists were affected; the Clerk of Court was directed to unseal the documents.
What happened
In 41-45 Property Owner, LLC v. CDM1, LLC, the parties filed lists of witnesses they intended to call at trial. They filed the lists under seal.
The court found no legally recognized reason to keep the witness lists sealed. Although the parties were given a deadline to request continued sealing, neither party made that request.
Judge Schofield ordered the seals removed and directed the Clerk of Court to make the documents publicly accessible.
The detailed version
- 41-45 Property Owner, LLC v. CDM1, LLC · No. 1:22-cv-08634
- Lorna Schofield
- Sept. 16, 2025
Background
On September 8, 2025, the parties filed lists identifying the witnesses each intended to call at trial. The lists were filed under seal at Dkt. Nos. 134 and 135.
Sealing Standard
The court explained that deciding whether to seal a document involves three questions. First, the court asks whether the document is a judicial document subject to a presumed right of public access. That depends on whether the document is relevant to the court’s work and useful in the judicial process. Second, if the presumption applies, the court determines how strong it is by considering the document’s role in the exercise of federal judicial power and its value to people monitoring the courts. Third, the court weighs that presumption against competing concerns, including privacy interests.
The court also noted that access may be restricted only when specific findings show that sealing is essential to protect more important interests and is narrowly tailored to do so.
Ruling
The court stated that there appeared to be no legally recognized reason for keeping the witness lists sealed. In an earlier order dated September 11, 2025, the parties had been instructed to make an application for continued sealing by September 15, 2025, if they had a reason to do so. No such application was filed.
The court ordered that the seals be removed from the witness lists at Dkt. Nos. 134 and 135. It also directed the Clerk of Court to unseal those documents.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.