Davidson v. Chisolm
- Paul Gardephe
- 1:21-cv-00656
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Davidson v. Chisolm, Magistrate Judge Fox denied Chisolm’s requests to file sealing motions and responsive pleadings under seal for lack of legal support.
Defendant Daphne T. Chisolm’s requests to file motions and responsive pleadings under seal were denied; Plaintiff Kerry J. Davidson had consented to those requests.
What happened
In Davidson v. Chisolm, Defendant Daphne T. Chisolm asked to file motions seeking to seal the complaint and to allow responsive pleadings to be filed under seal. She said the complaint contained client confidences and privileged information that could cause harm if widely shared.
Plaintiff Kerry J. Davidson agreed to Chisolm’s requests. Chisolm later filed an amended request to correct a typographical error.
Magistrate Judge Kevin Nathaniel Fox denied both the original and amended requests. The court said Chisolm did not cite legal authority supporting the requests and did not explain why the anticipated filings themselves should be placed under seal.
The detailed version
- Davidson v. Chisolm · No. 1:21-cv-00656
- Paul Gardephe
- May 26, 2021
Background
Defendant Daphne T. Chisolm filed a letter-motion asking for permission to file under seal motions to seal the complaint and to permit responsive pleadings to be filed under seal. Chisolm asserted that the complaint included allegations that, if true, would constitute client confidences under Rule 1.6 of the Rules of Professional Conduct and would be protected by attorney-client privilege. She also asserted that public distribution could be embarrassing, detrimental, or harmful to her. Plaintiff Kerry J. Davidson consented to the requested relief.
Chisolm later filed an amended letter-motion correcting a typographical error. The opinion identifies the original request as Docket Entry No. 14 and the amended request as Docket Entry No. 15.
Court’s Analysis
The court explained that the party seeking to seal a document bears the burden of showing that sealing is justified. It also stated that both the common-law right of public access to judicial documents and the First Amendment require the party seeking sealing to establish the conditions supporting that relief.
The court found that Chisolm cited no legal authority supporting her request for permission to file the sealing motions and responsive pleadings under seal. Although she stated that “many” allegations in the complaint would be protected by attorney-client privilege, she did not identify a basis for sealing the anticipated motions themselves or the request to file responsive pleadings under seal.
Disposition
Magistrate Judge Kevin Nathaniel Fox denied the letter-motion at Docket Entry No. 14 and the amended letter-motion at Docket Entry No. 15. The opinion does not state that the complaint itself was sealed or that the underlying case was dismissed.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.