Dugan v. Black Box Projects

Background

Plaintiff filed the complaint on October 24, 2025. Plaintiff then moved to temporarily seal it and voluntarily dismissed the case. Plaintiff later sought permanent sealing, arguing that the complaint was not a court record receiving the highest presumption of public access because the court had not relied on it, engaged in judicial deliberation about it, or made a substantive decision in the case. Plaintiff also cited general privacy and confidentiality concerns.

Court’s Analysis

The court relied on Second Circuit precedent stating that pleadings in civil litigation generally are judicial records, meaning records subject to public-access rules. A case's settlement or other termination without a decision on the merits does not change that status. The court also explained that whether the court relied on a document is not the controlling question; the relevant question is whether the document relates to the court's judicial function.

The court further stated that broad or general findings and conclusory assertions are not enough to overcome the strong presumption of public access. It was unpersuaded that the complaint deserved less public-access protection merely because the court had not relied on it and the case had been voluntarily dismissed. It also found that Plaintiff's supporting explanations about privacy and confidentiality were conclusory.

Ruling

Judge Lewis J. Liman denied the motion for permanent sealing without prejudice. The order permits Plaintiff to file another motion by November 21, 2025, with a more detailed explanation of why sealing is necessary and why privacy interests outweigh the strong presumption of public access. If Plaintiff does not file a renewed motion, the complaint will be unsealed.