Hunt v. Enzo Biochem, Inc.
- P. Castel
- 1:06-cv-00170
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Hunt v. Enzo Biochem, Inc., Judge Castel ordered one sealed complaint unsealed after finding public-access rights outweighed Enzo’s objections.
The order affects Enzo Biochem, Inc., Lawrence Glaser, the parties to the three cases, and the public by requiring the Clerk to unseal Doc. 7 in case 06-cv-6347. It does not address confidential discovery materials that were never filed with the court.
What happened
In Hunt v. Enzo Biochem, Inc., shareholder Lawrence Glaser asked the court to unseal documents in three related cases. The court found no sealed documents in one case, and described the status of sealed documents in the other two.
The court ruled that Doc. 7 in case 06-cv-6347 was an amended complaint with attached exhibits. Complaints are generally presumed open to the public, and Enzo did not show a sufficient reason to keep this document sealed. The court also rejected Enzo’s arguments that Glaser’s request was too late or that he could not make it because he was not a party.
Judge Castel ordered the Clerk to unseal Doc. 7 and terminate the three letter motions. The order did not address confidential discovery materials that had not been filed with the court.
The detailed version
- Hunt v. Enzo Biochem, Inc. · No. 1:06-cv-00170
- P. Castel
- Dec. 3, 2020
Background
Lawrence Glaser, a shareholder of Enzo Biochem, Inc., asked the court on August 18, 2020, to unseal documents in three related cases. The court stated that no sealed documents remained in case 06-cv-170. In case 06-cv-213, one sealed document had been destroyed after it was not retrieved following notice, and another had been retrieved by the party that requested sealing. Case 06-cv-6347 had one sealed document, Doc. 7.
Doc. 7 was the first amended complaint in case 06-cv-6347. Enzo argued that a public version was already available on the docket and that the first amended complaint had been replaced by a second amended complaint. The court noted that the sealed filing appeared to contain the same complaint plus attached exhibits. It also noted that the first amended complaint had been the subject of an earlier order addressing Enzo’s motion to dismiss.
Court’s Analysis
The court explained that judicial documents generally carry a common-law and First Amendment right of public access. A complaint is a judicial document covered by a strong presumption of public access, including in a settled case. The court concluded that Enzo had not identified countervailing factors or higher values sufficient to overcome that presumption.
The court also rejected Enzo’s arguments that Glaser’s request was untimely and that a non-party could not seek unsealing. The court distinguished confidential discovery materials that had not been filed with the court, explaining that the presumption of public access does not extend to those materials. The order therefore addressed only sealed documents filed in the three cases.
Disposition
Judge P. Castel ordered the Clerk to unseal Doc. 7 in case 06-cv-6347. The Clerk was also directed to terminate the letter motions identified in the order: 06-cv-170, Doc. 165; 06-cv-213, Doc. 116; and 06-cv-6347, Doc. 81.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.