Brink's Global Services USA, Inc. v. Bonita Pearl, Inc., et al.
- Paul Gardephe
- 1:22-cv-06653
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
Brink's Global Services v. Bonita Pearl: Judge Gardephe denied defendants’ motion to seal exhibits submitted in a summary-judgment dispute.
The defendants, who sought to keep the two exhibits sealed, and the public, which was granted access to unredacted versions of those exhibits.
What happened
In Brink's Global Services USA, Inc. v. Bonita Pearl, Inc., defendants asked the court to allow redactions and sealing of two exhibits submitted in connection with Brink’s summary-judgment motion on defendants’ counterclaim. The exhibits were a settlement agreement and excerpts from a deposition that the parties had treated as confidential.
The court explained that documents submitted in connection with a motion are generally judicial documents subject to public access. It ruled that the parties’ confidentiality agreement, by itself, did not overcome that presumption, and defendants had identified no other basis for sealing.
Judge Paul G. Gardephe denied the motion to seal, directed defendants to publicly file unredacted versions of the two exhibits, and directed the Clerk of Court to terminate the motion.
The detailed version
- Brink's Global Services USA, Inc. v. Bonita Pearl, Inc., et al. · No. 1:22-cv-06653
- Paul Gardephe
- Sept. 30, 2025
Background
Defendants requested permission to redact and seal portions of two exhibits to the declaration of Steven C. Shuman, filed in connection with Brink’s motion for summary judgment on defendants’ counterclaim. Exhibit 2 was the entire Confidential Settlement Agreement and General Release between Arat Jewelry Corp. et al. and Brink’s Global Services USA, Inc. Exhibit 3 contained excerpts from Gloria Corrales’s deposition that had already been designated confidential.
Court’s reasoning
The court applied the presumption that the public may access judicial documents. It stated that the parties’ consent, or the existence of a confidentiality agreement, is not by itself enough to overcome that presumption. The court also explained that settlement agreements submitted to the court in connection with a motion are judicial documents, and that a confidentiality clause alone does not provide a sufficient countervailing reason for sealing them. Because defendants had given no basis for sealing beyond the parties’ confidentiality agreement, the court rejected the request.
Ruling
The motion to seal was denied. Defendants were directed to publicly file unredacted versions of Exhibits 2 and 3 to Shuman’s declaration. The Clerk of Court was directed to terminate the motion, identified as Dkt. No. 316. The opinion did not decide the underlying summary-judgment motion or the merits of defendants’ counterclaim.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.