O'Gorman v. Mercer Kitchen L.L.C.
- Lewis Liman
- 1:20-cv-01404
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In O'Gorman v. Mercer Kitchen, Judge Liman denied without prejudice a request to seal a motion to amend, allowing a redacted filing.
Plaintiff P. O’Gorman and the defendants whose documents were marked confidential; the ruling addressed how the plaintiff could file the motion to amend and related materials.
What happened
In O'Gorman v. Mercer Kitchen L.L.C., the plaintiff asked to file a motion to amend the complaint under seal. The plaintiff said the motion relied on leases, operating agreements, and other documents that defendants had marked confidential under a protective order.
The court found that the request did not meet the legal standards for sealing court records. It explained that a confidentiality agreement between the parties alone was not enough to overcome the public’s right to access judicial documents.
Judge Lewis J. Liman denied the sealing request without prejudice. The plaintiff could consult with defendants and file the motion to amend with proposed redactions for information that was truly confidential or sensitive by January 20, 2021; otherwise, the plaintiff was directed to file the materials publicly and without redaction.
The detailed version
- O'Gorman v. Mercer Kitchen L.L.C. · No. 1:20-cv-01404
- Lewis Liman
- Jan. 13, 2021
Background
Plaintiff P. O’Gorman requested permission to file a motion to amend the complaint under seal. The request concerned a proposed motion to add parties based on information from leases, operating agreements, and other documents produced by defendants. Defendants had marked those materials confidential, and the plaintiff stated that an existing protective order prevented publicly explaining the basis for the amendment motion without sealing it.
Court’s analysis
The court applied the standards from Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga for sealing judicial documents. It concluded that the plaintiff’s application did not satisfy those standards. The court also stated that information being covered by a confidentiality agreement between litigants is not, by itself, a valid reason to overcome the presumption of public access. The court cited the requirement that judicial documents not be sealed in their entirety unless necessary.
Disposition
Judge Lewis J. Liman denied the motion to seal without prejudice. The plaintiff was permitted, after consulting with defendants, to file the motion to amend with proposed redactions of information that was truly confidential or sensitive and that satisfied the applicable sealing standard by January 20, 2021. Otherwise, the plaintiff was directed to refile the motion to amend, proposed amended complaint, and supporting memorandum publicly and without redaction by that date.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.