Zabit v. Brandometry, LLC

Background

On November 18, 2020, the court directed the parties to justify continued sealing of previously filed documents under the standard from Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga. The defendants—Brandlogic doing business as Tenet Partners, CoreBrand Data Science, Tenet Partners, Hampton Bridwell, and James Gregory—submitted a letter seeking to keep previously sealed “Confidential Documents” sealed. They argued that privacy interests and the parties’ confidentiality agreements outweighed the public’s right of access.

The plaintiffs submitted a late letter asking the court to keep certain nondisclosure and confidentiality agreements involving LAM Associates and Toroso Investments sealed. The plaintiffs said they sought sealing “for the sake of consistency.” The court had directed the plaintiffs to file the documents under seal through the electronic filing system or explain why they could not do so. The plaintiffs instead stated that they would submit the documents for private review but did not explain why electronic filing under seal was unavailable.

Analysis

The court held that the defendants’ general assertions were inadequate under Lugosch. The defendants did not identify what specific privacy interests would be harmed by public disclosure. As a result, the court could not make the specific, on-the-record findings required to show that sealing was necessary to protect higher values.

The court also held that confidentiality agreements between the parties were not enough to overcome the presumption of public access to judicial documents. The parties’ agreement to keep information confidential did not control because the relevant access rights belonged to the public.

The court found the plaintiffs’ request inadequate for the same reason: it did not provide specific justification under Lugosch. The court also found the request incomplete because the plaintiffs had not followed the court’s instructions concerning electronic filing under seal.

Disposition

The court denied the parties’ applications to seal without prejudice. It allowed the parties until December 4, 2020, to provide specific reasons supporting sealing for each document. The court stated that, absent further correspondence from the defendants, it would unseal the listed Confidential Documents that had actually been filed in the case and the defendants’ motions to dismiss, because the defendants had provided no reasons to continue sealing them. If the plaintiffs did not justify sealing by that date, they were required to file their opposition and related exhibits publicly by December 7, 2020.

Judge John P. Cronan did not decide the underlying motions to dismiss in this order.