Kiarie v. Dumbstruck, Inc.
- 1:19-cv-00827
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Kiarie v. Dumbstruck, Inc., the court ordered a sealing application or public filing by July 8, 2020, for exhibits cited on a motion to amend.
The plaintiffs and defendants, particularly any party seeking to keep portions of the exhibits filed under Docket entries 59 and 63 from public view.
What happened
Kiarie v. Dumbstruck, Inc. concerns exhibits that both sides cited in support of a pending request to amend but did not file publicly.
The court said the parties had not followed the required process for asking to keep documents secret. It ordered the party seeking secrecy to submit a written explanation by July 8, 2020, or publicly file the documents instead.
The court also ruled that any request must address specific information, not entire documents, and identify the relevant pages and lines. The court found that sealing the documents in their entirety was not justified, although very limited portions might qualify.
The detailed version
- Kiarie v. Dumbstruck, Inc. · No. 1:19-cv-00827
- July 1, 2020
Background
The plaintiffs and defendants cited exhibits supporting a pending motion to amend. The exhibits were not publicly filed on the electronic docket because they had been marked confidential. The opinion states that neither side submitted the written application required by the court's individual practices and the case's protective order for materials that a party seeks to file under seal.
Court's Order
The court ordered whichever party seeks to keep the exhibits secret—not necessarily the party that filed them—to submit a written application by July 8, 2020. The application must explain why sealing is justified under the legal standard identified in Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga. Alternatively, that party may publicly file the omitted documents by the same deadline.
The court stated that any justification must address each specific type of information withheld. After examining the documents, the court found no justification for sealing them in their entirety. It stated that, at most, extremely limited portions might satisfy the demanding standard and required any application to identify those portions by page and, when appropriate, line number.
Disposition
This order addresses the procedure for sealing or publicly filing the exhibits. It does not decide the pending motion to amend or finally determine whether any particular portion will be sealed. The opinion identifies Gabriel W. Gorenstein as the United States magistrate judge in its heading, but the signature text provided appears to identify a different name; this summary therefore refers to the court.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.