Andrews v. Verner
- Analisa Torres
- 1:19-cv-08451
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In Andrews v. Verner, Judge Torres denied plaintiffs’ motion to seal filings supporting their default-judgment motion.
The plaintiffs’ reply memorandum, supporting declaration, and exhibits, as well as the defendant and access to those filed documents.
What happened
In Andrews v. Verner, the plaintiffs asked the court to seal their reply memorandum, declaration, and exhibits supporting a motion for default judgment.
The plaintiffs said they sought sealing out of caution and deference to the defendant, even though they did not believe the materials were privileged or confidential. Their motion did not cite legal authority or explain why sealing was justified.
Judge Analisa Torres denied the motion, directed the Clerk to remove the temporary hold on the documents, and ordered the sealing motion terminated.
The detailed version
- Andrews v. Verner · No. 1:19-cv-08451
- Analisa Torres
- Dec. 5, 2019
Background
On November 23, 2019, the plaintiffs moved to seal their reply memorandum and a supporting declaration and exhibits filed in support of their motion for a default judgment. The plaintiffs stated that they made the request as a precaution and out of deference to the defendant, but they did not believe the materials were privileged or confidential. They later asked the Clerk to place a temporary hold on the documents while the court considered the sealing request.
Court’s Analysis
The court’s individual practices required a sealing request to cite legal authority and provide factual reasons supporting sealing. The court found that the plaintiffs’ motion did neither. The court also held that the request failed to satisfy the constitutional requirement for specific, on-the-record findings that sealing is necessary to protect higher values and is narrowly tailored to that purpose. The order cited Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga, 435 F.3d 110, 124 (2d Cir. 2006).
Disposition
The court denied the plaintiffs’ motion to seal the documents at ECF Nos. 32 and 33. It directed the Clerk to remove the temporary hold on those documents and to terminate the motion at ECF No. 34. This order addressed the sealing request; the opinion text does not state a ruling on the separate motion for default judgment.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.