MN Theaters 2006 LLC v. Grupo Cinemex, S.A. de C.V.
- P. Castel
- 1:20-cv-05860
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In MN Theaters v. Grupo Cinemex, Judge Castel allowed one redacted filing but denied sealing two financial exhibits.
Grupo Cinemex’s request to redact or seal financial information was only partly successful, while the ruling preserved public access to the two documents the court refused to seal.
What happened
MN Theaters 2006 LLC and Grupo Cinemex are parties in a case involving documents submitted in opposition to a motion to confirm and an order of attachment. Grupo Cinemex asked to redact confidential financial information from one document and to file two other documents under seal.
The court explained that judicial documents generally carry a right of public access. Confidentiality alone, and unsupported claims of harm in an unsworn attorney letter, were not enough to justify sealing. Redacting sensitive information is preferred over sealing an entire document.
Judge Castel granted leave to file one document in redacted form, stating that the court would consider only the redacted document. He denied leave to file the two financial-information documents under seal and terminated the letter motion.
The detailed version
- MN Theaters 2006 LLC v. Grupo Cinemex, S.A. de C.V. · No. 1:20-cv-05860
- P. Castel
- Sept. 9, 2020
Background
Grupo Cinemex sought permission to file one document with confidential, non-public financial information redacted and two other documents containing such information under seal. The documents were submitted in opposition to a motion to confirm and an order of attachment.
Legal standard
The court explained that judicial documents generally carry common-law and First Amendment rights of public access. A document is a judicial document when it is relevant to the court’s work and useful in the judicial process. The court must weigh the strength of the public-access presumption against countervailing interests or higher values, such as legal privilege, business secrecy, and privacy interests.
Any sealing must be narrowly tailored. Redacting sensitive information is generally preferable to sealing an entire document. The court also stated that an attorney’s conclusory assertions of harm in an unsworn letter are insufficient to support sealing, and that information is not sealable merely because it is not otherwise public and a party considers it confidential.
The court distinguished a filing in which only a redacted portion of a larger document is made available to the court. In that situation, the court may require the complete document to be provided to the opposing party for inspection, but the public-access right is not implicated by the portion that is not submitted to the court.
Ruling
The court granted leave to file one document in redacted form: Exhibit K to the Pulecio-Boek Declaration. The court stated that it would consider only the redacted document. It denied leave to file under seal two documents containing financial information: Exhibits P and Q to the Pulecio-Boek Declaration. The court terminated Letter Motion 31.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.