Republic of Turkey v. Christie's Inc.

Background

The court had previously issued an order resolving the parties’ motions for summary judgment and the plaintiff’s motions to exclude expert testimony. The underlying opinion and order was temporarily sealed so the parties could propose redactions. The court had also denied earlier requests to seal various filings while allowing the parties to submit narrower, justified requests.

The plaintiff asked to redact limited portions of Docket Nos. 220, 221-4, and 240. The defendants asked to redact limited portions of Docket Nos. 195-4, 198, 220, 221-1, and 240, and asked to keep Docket No. 226-6 under seal. The defendants also asked to file their sealing application with redactions and to keep Exhibits A–C to that application under seal.

Court’s analysis

The court treated the filings as judicial documents, meaning documents connected to the court’s decision-making, to which there is a strong presumption of public access. It concluded that the parties’ and third parties’ privacy interests outweighed the value of the information in the proposed redactions to people monitoring the federal courts. It also concluded that the defendants’ interest in protecting sensitive commercial information outweighed the public-access interest in Docket No. 226-6.

The court further held that the defendants’ request to redact their sealing application and seal Exhibits A–C did not comply with the court’s Individual Rules in Civil Cases. Those rules required sealing motions to be filed publicly without the confidential information the party sought to seal, except to the extent supporting papers needed protection. The defendants’ application contained confidential information that they were then seeking to redact.

Disposition

The court granted the plaintiff’s request for limited redactions; granted the defendants’ requests for limited redactions; and granted the defendants’ request to maintain Docket No. 226-6 under seal. It denied the defendants’ request to file their sealing application with redactions and to maintain Exhibits A–C under seal. The court permitted the defendants to refile the sealing application after removing the confidential information sought to be sealed.

The court directed the parties, within one week, to file the relevant motion papers publicly with the approved redactions, except for documents the court approved for continued sealing. The parties also had to file unredacted copies of all redacted or sealed documents on the electronic docket. The defendants had to refile their sealing motion without confidential information and explain why any supporting papers needed to be sealed. The order resolved Docket Nos. 276 and 278.