Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Sept. 8, 2020

Carrington v. Graden

Judge
Katherine Failla
Docket
1:18-cv-04609
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
3
Civil ProcedureEvidence
In one sentence

In Carrington v. Graden, Judge Failla granted defendants’ application to seal Exhibit 3, restricting access to the court and parties.

Who this affects

The order affects public access to Exhibit 3: the court and the parties may view it, while it is not publicly viewable. The exhibit also concerns named non-parties.

What happened

Rovier Carrington v. Brian Graden involved defendants’ request to seal Exhibit 3, an August 27, 2020 settlement demand submitted with their letter to the court.

Defendants argued that the exhibit contained sensitive settlement communications, inflammatory allegations, and allegations concerning named non-parties. They asked to keep it from public view.

Judge Katherine Polk Failla granted the application and permitted the clerk to file Exhibit 3 under seal, where it could be viewed only by the court and the parties.

The detailed version

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

Case
Carrington v. Graden · No. 1:18-cv-04609
Judge
Katherine Failla
Date
Sept. 8, 2020

Background

Defendants sought permission to file Exhibit 3 under seal. The exhibit was an August 27, 2020 settlement demand from Carrington. Defendants said it showed a threat to bring additional litigation, contained demands they characterized as extortive, and included inflammatory allegations against defendants and their attorneys. They also said it identified non-parties, including public figures, by name and made allegations of wrongdoing that had not been publicly filed.

The defendants’ letter stated that an October 11, 2019 order had imposed terminating sanctions on Carrington, dismissed the action with prejudice against all defendants, and allowed defendants to seek attorneys’ fees and costs. The sealing request concerned Exhibit 3 to the September 4, 2020 letter, not those earlier rulings.

Sealing Request

Defendants argued that Exhibit 3 was a private settlement communication and therefore was not a judicial document—that is, a document sufficiently connected to the court’s decision-making process to receive the public-access presumption. They further argued that, even if it were a judicial document, the confidentiality of settlement communications and the privacy interests of non-parties outweighed public access.

Ruling

Judge Katherine Polk Failla granted the application. The order permitted the clerk to file Exhibit 3 under seal. The exhibit was made viewable to the court and the parties only.

The authoritative version

Read the full 3-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.