Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Nov. 18, 2025

Simon-Whelan v. The Andy Warhol Foundation for the Visual Arts

Judge
Laura Swain
Docket
1:07-cv-06423
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
2
Civil ProcedureDiscovery
In one sentence

In Joe Simon-Whelan v. The Andy Warhol Foundation, Judge Swain ordered old exhibits sealed and allowed written objections within 21 days.

Who this affects

The order affects the exhibits submitted with Joe Simon-Whelan’s 2010 letter, the parties who designated documents confidential during discovery, the Clerk of Court, and members of the public seeking access to those exhibits.

What happened

Joe Simon-Whelan’s case against The Andy Warhol Foundation for the Visual Arts, Inc. and other defendants had already had all claims dismissed under a settlement agreement. The court received a 2025 letter referring to exhibits submitted with a 2010 letter after that dismissal.

The exhibits were not added to the court’s electronic docket but were kept in the Court’s Open Records Room. The court said no action had been taken on the 2010 letter and that the exhibits therefore did not appear to be documents entitled to the usual presumption of public access.

The clerk was directed to remove the exhibits from the Open Records Room and file them under seal because many or all had been designated confidential during discovery. Judge Laura Taylor Swain allowed written objections to continuing the sealing indefinitely within 21 days of the order.

The detailed version

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

Case
Simon-Whelan v. The Andy Warhol Foundation for the Visual Arts · No. 1:07-cv-06423
Judge
Laura Swain
Date
Nov. 18, 2025

Background

The court received a November 10, 2025 letter from counsel for Joe Simon-Whelan. That letter referred to exhibits submitted with a November 5, 2010 letter. The exhibits had not been digitized or linked to the docket; they had been deposited in the Court’s Open Records Room.

The court explained that the 2010 letter was filed after all claims in the case had been dismissed under a settlement stipulation. Because no action was taken on the matters discussed in that letter, the court stated that none of the submitted documents appeared to be “judicial documents”—documents to which a presumption of public access may apply. The court also noted that, according to the 2025 letter, many or all of the exhibits had been designated confidential during discovery under a confidentiality stipulation and order.

Ruling

The court directed the Clerk of Court to remove the exhibits from the Open Records Room and file them under seal. The court based that direction on the confidentiality designations and its conclusion that the documents did not appear subject to the presumption of public access for judicial documents. Any objection to continuing the sealing indefinitely had to be made in writing and filed within 21 days of the order. Judge Laura Taylor Swain signed the order.

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.