Zabit v. Brandometry, LLC

Background

The Tenet Defendants—Brandlogic doing business as Tenet Partners, CoreBrand Data Science, Tenet Partners, and Hampton Bridwell—and Defendant James Gregory filed motions to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint under seal. The filings included motions, legal memoranda, declarations, and exhibits. An earlier order by Judge Jed S. Rakoff had allowed the Tenet Defendants to file three exhibits under seal, but stated that the court retained discretion over whether to continue confidential treatment.

The court explained that motions to dismiss and their attachments are judicial documents, meaning court filings to which the public generally has a right of access. On November 18, 2020, the court ordered the parties to justify continued sealing under the standards established by the Second Circuit in Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga.

Parties’ submissions

The defendants’ December 1 letter relied on the earlier sealing order, referred generally to privacy interests, and stated that relevant parties wanted confidentiality. The court found those assertions insufficient and noted that the defendants did not justify sealing the rest of the motion papers. The plaintiffs later asked the court to keep certain documents sealed for consistency, but clarified that they did not actually believe sealing was warranted and only wanted uniform treatment of confidentiality agreements.

On December 2, the court denied both sides’ requests to seal and gave the parties another opportunity to provide supporting explanations by December 4. The defendants submitted nothing further. The plaintiffs then filed their opposition to the motions to dismiss on the public docket.

Ruling

Judge John P. Cronan ordered that the Tenet Defendants’ motion to dismiss, including all attachments, and James Gregory’s motion to dismiss, including all attachments, be unsealed. The unsealed materials included the documents covered by Judge Rakoff’s earlier order. The Clerk was directed to unseal docket entries 101 and 102 and all their attachments.

The court also ordered that the defendants would have until January 5, 2021—thirty days after the plaintiffs submitted their opposition—to file their reply. This order addressed access to the filings and the briefing schedule; it did not decide the underlying motions to dismiss.