Robinson v. De Niro
- Lewis Liman
- 1:19-cv-09156
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 8
Robinson v. De Niro: Judge Parker granted sealing for one medical record but denied broader requests, requiring tailored redactions or unsealing.
The ruling affected Graham Chase Robinson, the defendants, their counsel, and the public’s access to exhibits filed in the case.
What happened
In Graham Chase Robinson v. Robert De Niro et al., the defendants asked to keep 25 exhibits supporting their sanctions motion out of public view. The exhibits included deposition transcripts, a medical record, emails, business documents, contracts, and audio recordings.
Judge Parker applied the general rule that documents submitted for a court’s consideration are presumed open to the public. She explained that sealing requires a specific, important privacy or other interest and must be limited to only the information that needs protection. The defendants had generally described the exhibits as sensitive but had not identified specific protected information in most of them.
Judge Parker granted the request for the medical record, denied the other sealing requests, and ordered the clerk to unseal certain documents. She allowed revised requests for limited redactions to some transcripts and recordings; otherwise, those materials would be unsealed.
The detailed version
- Robinson v. De Niro · No. 1:19-cv-09156
- Lewis Liman
- July 13, 2022
Background
The defendants filed a motion for sanctions against Graham Chase Robinson and her counsel. In support, they submitted exhibits that included deposition transcripts, Robinson’s December 21, 2021 medical record, emails, business documents, actor contracts, and audio recordings. The defendants asked to file 25 exhibits under seal, meaning they sought to keep them from public access in the court record.
Legal standard
The common law and the First Amendment create a presumption that the public may access judicial documents. Documents submitted for the court’s consideration of a sanctions motion are judicial documents. A party seeking to seal such documents must show that sealing is necessary to protect an important interest, such as personal privacy, and that the request is narrowly tailored to protect only the information that needs protection. General concerns about publicity, celebrity status, possible employment consequences, or previously agreed confidentiality do not by themselves overcome the presumption of public access.
Analysis
The court found that sealing was justified for ECF No. 197-4, Robinson’s medical record. Medical information generally receives significant privacy protection, and Robinson’s medical condition was not at issue in the sanctions decision. Because the entire record contained sensitive medical information, sealing the entire document was narrowly tailored. The motion was therefore granted as to that document.
The court found sealing unwarranted for ECF Nos. 197-8, -10, -11, -16, -17, -18, and -19, and ECF Nos. 230-1, -5, -6, and -14. These materials included business communications, information about a job title, a resume and professional biography, travel arrangements, actor contracts, and communications with film producer Chris Young. The court found no important privacy or business interest requiring sealing. Any personal contact information had already been redacted from the versions filed with the court. Sealing was denied with prejudice as to these documents because a revised sealing request would not succeed.
The court also denied sealing for ECF Nos. 197-3, -5, -13, and -15, which were deposition transcripts, and ECF Nos. 230-2, -3, -4, -7, -8, -9, -10, -11, and -12, which were audio recordings. The court denied those requests without prejudice because the materials might contain some sensitive information, but sealing them in their entirety was not narrowly tailored. The defendants could file revised motions proposing specific redactions and explaining why each proposed redaction was necessary. Robinson could also seek narrowly tailored redactions to her deposition transcript if her privacy interests were implicated.
Because audio recordings could not be filed on the electronic docket, the defendants had sent them to the court by email. The court ordered the defendants to file transcripts of the recordings and allowed them to seek redactions of especially sensitive portions.
Disposition
The court granted the defendants’ motion to seal at ECF No. 194 only as to ECF No. 197-4. It otherwise denied the motion at ECF No. 194 and denied the motion at ECF No. 228. The clerk was asked to unseal the documents for which sealing was denied with prejudice. The deposition transcripts and audio-recording materials were to remain under seal temporarily, while revised sealing motions and transcripts could be filed by July 22, 2022; absent a revised filing, those documents would be unsealed.
Read the full 8-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.