Dolce v. Pezzola
- Lorna Schofield
- 1:23-cv-10049
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
Dolce v. Pezzola: Judge Schofield ordered plaintiffs to justify keeping redactions sealed in a declaration filed against defendants’ dismissal motion.
Seth Dolce and Tribeca Capital, LLC must explain why the redacted portions of Paula A. Miller’s declaration should remain sealed. The order concerns access to the declaration’s redacted exhibits and does not decide the defendants’ motion to dismiss.
What happened
In Seth Dolce, Tribeca Capital, LLC v. David Pezzola et al., the plaintiffs filed a declaration opposing the defendants’ motion to dismiss. The declaration included exhibits with redacted information.
The plaintiffs had not asked the court to seal the exhibits or approved the redactions. The court noted that judicial documents are generally presumed open to the public, although courts may protect information when competing concerns, including personal safety, support nondisclosure.
Judge Lorna G. Schofield ordered the plaintiffs to file, by November 24, 2025, a letter motion of no more than three pages explaining why each redacted portion should remain sealed and following the judge’s individual rules. The order did not decide whether the redactions would remain sealed.
The detailed version
- Dolce v. Pezzola · No. 1:23-cv-10049
- Lorna Schofield
- Nov. 17, 2025
Background
Plaintiffs Seth Dolce and Tribeca Capital, LLC filed a declaration by Paula A. Miller opposing defendants’ motion to dismiss. The declaration contained exhibits with redacted information. Plaintiffs had not filed a motion to seal the exhibits or otherwise asked the court to approve the redactions.
Court’s Analysis
The court explained that the public generally has a common-law right to access judicial documents. That right is not absolute, however, and the court must balance public access against competing considerations. The court cited concerns about personal safety as a reason that may support keeping information from public disclosure.
Order
The court ordered plaintiffs to file by November 24, 2025, a letter motion no longer than three pages explaining why the redacted information in the declaration should remain sealed. Plaintiffs must address each redacted portion specifically and follow Individual Rule I.D.3. The order directed further briefing; it did not itself decide whether any redacted information would remain sealed.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.