Brandon v. NPG Records, Inc.
- Gregory Woods
- 1:19-cv-01923
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Brandon v. NPG Records, Inc., Judge Woods deferred ruling on four sealing motions and invited supplemental briefing by March 27, 2020.
The parties to the case, particularly the parties involved in the four motions to seal and the motion to dismiss.
What happened
In Brandon v. NPG Records, Inc., the court considered four pending requests to keep documents from public view while a motion to dismiss was also pending.
The court explained that court documents are generally presumed to be open to the public. A party seeking secrecy must show a specific, compelling need, and a confidentiality label under a protective order is not enough by itself. The court invited supplemental briefing by March 27, 2020, if the parties wanted to provide more information about the requests.
Judge Gregory H. Woods did not state a final decision on the sealing motions in this order. He stated that the court would rule on those motions at the same time as the pending motion to dismiss.
The detailed version
- Brandon v. NPG Records, Inc. · No. 1:19-cv-01923
- Gregory Woods
- Mar. 20, 2020
Background
James M. Brandon sued NPG Records, Inc., NPG Music Publishing, LLC, the Estate of Prince Rogers Nelson, Comerica Bank & Trust, N.A., Shelton Jackson Lee, Forty Acres and a Mule Musicworks, Inc., and Twentieth Century FOW Film Corporation. The order addresses motions to seal filed at docket numbers 145, 151, 153, and 154, along with a motion to dismiss at docket number 141.
Legal standard
The court described a long-standing presumption that judicial documents should be available to the public. A party seeking to seal a document must show, with specific findings supported by the record, that sealing is essential to protect a higher value and is narrowly tailored to that purpose. The party seeking sealing has the burden of proof.
The parties’ protective order allowed them to label discovery materials “Confidential” or “Outside Counsel’s Eyes Only,” but the order stated that those labels do not bind the court. A confidentiality designation alone does not overcome the public-access presumption when a document becomes part of the court record. The court also noted that protective orders in discovery may be issued more freely because they can prevent discovery from being used to threaten disclosure of material that will not be used at trial.
Order
The court stated that it would decide the four sealing motions at the same time as the motion to dismiss. It directed the parties to file any supplemental briefing by March 27, 2020, if they wanted to give the court more information for evaluating the sealing requests. The order does not state a final grant or denial of any of those motions.
Judge Gregory H. Woods signed the order on March 20, 2020.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.