Bronx Conservatory of Music, Inc. v. Bronx School for Music, Inc.

Background

Bronx Conservatory of Music, Inc. alleged that Phillip Kwoka, its former Executive Director, took confidential information on a Bronx Conservatory laptop when he left his employment in 2020. It further alleged that he used that information to establish a competing music school, The Bronx School for Music, Inc., and to attract students and faculty away from Bronx Conservatory. The complaint asserted claims for misappropriation of trade secrets, copyright infringement, unfair competition, conversion, unjust enrichment, and breach of fiduciary duty.

Kwoka and The Bronx School filed an answer and five counterclaims. The fourth counterclaim was for sexual harassment of Phillip Kwoka. Bronx Conservatory asked to keep the unredacted pleading under seal and file a version that redacted almost all of that counterclaim. It argued that the allegations were scandalous and unsupported, were asserted without a legitimate purpose, were intended to intimidate, and were unrelated to the main case. Bronx Conservatory also asserted that the court lacked jurisdiction over the counterclaim, but it did not file a motion to dismiss it on that ground.

Analysis

Applying the three-step framework from Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga, Judge Moses first determined that the answer and counterclaims were “judicial documents”—court filings relevant to the judicial process. The court then found that pleadings receive a heavy presumption of public access because they are central to the court’s adjudication. The proposed redactions concerned the substance of the sexual-harassment counterclaim, not peripheral information, and hiding them would prevent the public from understanding the nature of a claim pending before the court.

The court held that Bronx Conservatory had not shown a legally sufficient reason to overcome the presumption of access. General concerns about adverse publicity or reputational injury were insufficient. The court also explained that the truth or falsity of the allegations was a merits question separate from public access. Finally, the court rejected reliance on the asserted jurisdictional problem as a basis for sealing. The opinion noted that the counterclaim invoked Title VII, which provides an independent basis for federal-question jurisdiction, so an analysis of supplemental jurisdiction was unnecessary.

Disposition

Judge Barbara Moses denied Bronx Conservatory’s sealing motion, Docket No. 30. The court ordered that the defendants’ unredacted answer and counterclaims, Docket No. 26, be unsealed and placed in public view on the electronic docket one week after the order, on Thursday, July 15, 2021. The order addressed access to the filed pleading; it did not decide whether the sexual-harassment allegations were true or whether the counterclaim would ultimately succeed.