Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Oct. 17, 2025

Kulick v. Gordon Property Group LLC

Judge
Katherine Failla
Docket
1:23-cv-09928
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
2
EmploymentCivil Procedure
In one sentence

In Kulick v. Gordon Property Group, Judge Failla granted Kulick’s request to file graphic sexual-email exhibits under seal.

Who this affects

Annette Kulick, the defendants, and members of the public who access the court docket; the identified exhibits will be filed under seal rather than publicly.

What happened

Annette Kulick asked the court in Kulick v. Gordon Property Group LLC et al. for permission to file more than 2,000 pages of emails under seal while opposing the defendants’ request for summary judgment. The emails came from Defendant Mark Borteck’s work account and included graphic sexual material.

Kulick said the documents supported her hostile work environment claim and contradicted the defendants’ description of the emails as infrequent, isolated, and accidental. The defendants opposed sealing, arguing that the documents did not qualify for it.

Judge Katherine Polk Failla granted the application and directed Kulick to file the identified exhibits under seal. The order did not decide the underlying employment claims or the pending summary-judgment motion.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
Kulick v. Gordon Property Group LLC · No. 1:23-cv-09928
Judge
Katherine Failla
Date
Oct. 17, 2025

Background

Annette Kulick is opposing the defendants’ motion for summary judgment in her employment case. She asked for permission to file exhibits designated GPG_0069467 through GPG_0071813 under seal. The exhibits contain more than 2,000 pages of emails from Defendant Mark Borteck’s work email account, including graphic nudity, depictions of sexual acts, sexual solicitations, and notifications from adult websites.

The request states that Kulick encountered numerous emails connected to dating and pornographic websites while searching Borteck’s computer for work. According to the request, she objected to the emails, told Borteck that the material was inappropriate and offensive, and later complained to a colleague. Kulick said the volume of the emails supported her testimony that she saw hundreds of inappropriate emails and had to view them every day.

Sealing Request

Kulick argued that the exhibits were central to her hostile work environment claim and rebutted the defendants’ characterization of the material as a one-time, isolated, inadvertent incident. She argued that the graphic details and images were not necessary for the public to understand the case, even though the existence and general nature of the emails were relevant. The defendants opposed the request and argued that the documents did not merit sealing.

Ruling

Judge Katherine Polk Failla granted the application. The order directs Plaintiff Kulick to file the described exhibits under seal. This order addressed only the filing of the exhibits and did not rule on the merits of Kulick’s employment claims or the defendants’ motion for summary judgment.

The authoritative version

Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.