Veerji Exports v. Carlos St Mary, Inc.

Background

Veerji Exports filed a memorandum opposing Defendant Brink’s Global Services USA, Inc.’s motion to dismiss and to compel arbitration. Veerji Exports also filed a declaration by Michael S. Fischman with 31 exhibits. BGS asked by email to seal Exhibits 5, 6, and 20 to that declaration. The three exhibits were temporarily kept under seal while the court considered the request.

The court’s Individual Rules limit each party to 15 exhibits, generally no more than 15 pages each, unless the court gives permission to file more. The rules also require a motion to seal to be filed publicly and to identify the parties and attorneys who should have access to sealed materials.

Public Access and Sealing

The court recognized a common-law presumption that the public may access judicial documents, but explained that this right is not absolute. A judicial document is a filed item relevant to the court’s work and useful in the judicial process.

The court found that sealing Exhibit 6 and pages 22 through 24 of Exhibit 5 was necessary to prevent unauthorized disclosure of confidential business information and information that could create a security risk if widely disclosed. Those materials describe BGS’s procedures for importing jewelry and precious stones, which the court said could be used by competitors or people seeking to exploit BGS’s procedures. The court also noted that any public disclosure already appearing in BGS’s motion papers reduced the potential harm from restricting access.

Veerji Exports agreed to remove Exhibit 20 from its motion. The court understood that agreement to mean Veerji Exports no longer wanted the court to consider Exhibit 20. The court therefore concluded that Exhibit 20 was not a judicial document and was not subject to the presumption of public access.

Order

The court granted BGS’s motion to seal Exhibits 5, 6, and 20 to the Fischman declaration.

BGS was directed to file a public letter that includes an appendix identifying the parties and attorneys who should have access to the sealed documents and attaches a publicly available redacted version of Exhibit 5. BGS was also directed to file the same letter with access restricted to the selected parties and individuals identified in the appendix, attaching unredacted versions of Exhibits 5, 6, and 20.

The court ordered each party to file publicly the letters previously submitted to the court by email. If either party believed that public filing would cause harm even after the exhibits were sealed, that party could file a public motion to seal the earlier letter motion, drafted so it could be filed publicly without redactions.

The court further ordered that exhibits beyond each party’s fifteenth exhibit, and exhibits that otherwise violate the Individual Rules, would not be considered in deciding BGS’s motion. The court warned that continued violations of the rules on motion practice and sealed filings may result in sanctions.

Classification Basis

This is a procedural order because it resolves access to filed materials and compliance with filing rules. It does not decide BGS’s motion to dismiss or motion to compel arbitration.