Poolos v. Global
- Gregory Woods
- 1:23-cv-08896
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Alexandra Poolos v. Paramount Global, Judge Ricardo granted in part and denied in part three motions concerning sealed filings and redactions.
Alexandra Poolos and the Defendants were required to revise and publicly file the affected documents using only the redactions the court approved. The clerk was directed to terminate the three letter motions.
What happened
In Alexandra Poolos v. Paramount Global, the parties asked the court to allow certain documents to remain sealed or contain redactions. Neither party objected to the requests.
The court approved some redactions, including Plaintiff’s redactions to documents at ECF Nos. 231–32 and the sealing of Exhibit C at ECF No. 221-3. It found other proposed redactions and sealing requests too broad under the general presumption that court documents should be publicly accessible.
Judge Henry J. Ricardo granted in part and denied in part each of the three letter motions. He directed the parties to file amended versions showing only the approved redactions by October 14, 2025, and directed the clerk to terminate the motions with that disposition.
The detailed version
- Poolos v. Global · No. 1:23-cv-08896
- Gregory Woods
- Oct. 6, 2025
What the court considered
The court considered three letter motions—ECF Nos. 216, 229, and 238—seeking permission to file documents under seal or with redactions. Neither party objected. The court applied the presumption that judicial documents should be available to the public and considered whether the proposed redactions were narrowly tailored, relying on the standard described in Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga.
Rulings on the documents
The court approved Plaintiff’s proposed redactions to documents filed at ECF Nos. 231–32. It also approved the filing under seal of Exhibit C to the Declaration of Lisa E. Dayan supporting Defendants’ objections, filed at ECF No. 221-3.
The court found other proposed sealing or redaction requests insufficiently tailored. For Defendants’ memorandum supporting their objections at ECF Nos. 218–19, it approved the redactions on page 7 (first redaction), pages 13 (second and third redactions), 18, 19 (top half and footnote 9), 22 (first redaction), and 23. It rejected as overly broad the proposed redactions on pages 6, 7 (second redaction), 8–10, 12, 13 (first redaction), the bottom half of page 19, pages 20–21, and page 22 (second redaction), and directed Defendants to file an amended public version without those rejected redactions.
The court rejected as overly broad the proposed sealing of Exhibit A to the Dayan Declaration at ECF No. 221-1. It noted that the exhibit had already been filed with approved redactions at ECF No. 208 and found no reason to file it under seal again.
The court also rejected as overly broad the proposed sealing of Exhibit B to the Dayan Declaration at ECF No. 221-2. Defendants were directed to file an amended redacted version without redactions to specified sections on pages 1–3 and 39–40, including information about the expert’s background and qualifications, the purpose of the evaluation, expected testimony, sources of information, compensation, recent depositions and trials, and publications.
For Plaintiff’s memorandum opposing Defendants’ objections at ECF Nos. 232–33, the court approved the proposed redactions on pages 12 and 20–22 but rejected as overly broad the redactions on pages 9 and 29. Plaintiff was directed to file an amended version removing those rejected redactions.
For Defendants’ reply memorandum at ECF Nos. 239–40, the court approved the proposed redactions on pages 6–7 and 10 but rejected as overly broad the redactions on pages 5, 8, 11, and 14. Defendants were directed to file an amended version removing those rejected redactions.
Disposition
The court stated that the letter motions at ECF Nos. 216, 229, and 238 were each granted in part and denied in part. The parties were directed to file amended documents reflecting only the approved redactions on the public docket by October 14, 2025. The clerk was directed to terminate each motion as granted in part and denied in part. This order addressed public access, sealing, and redactions; the opinion does not decide the underlying claims.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.