Robinson v. De Niro
- Lewis Liman
- 1:19-cv-09156
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Robinson v. De Niro, Judge Parker denied the parties’ request to temporarily seal all summary-judgment papers.
The parties, especially Plaintiff regarding the documents already filed under seal, and members of the public seeking access to the summary-judgment filings.
What happened
In Robinson v. De Niro and Canal Productions, Inc., the parties jointly asked to temporarily file nearly all papers connected to their summary-judgment motions under seal. They said the papers would contain material labeled confidential under a protective order.
The parties proposed exchanging redaction proposals after briefing and then submitting a joint letter addressing the requested redactions. The opinion does not decide the parties’ underlying summary-judgment claims.
Judge Katharine H. Parker denied the request to seal all the papers automatically. She said documents filed with summary-judgment briefing are generally presumed accessible to the public and required any sealing or redaction request to explain why the specific information must be kept from public view. Documents already sealed were allowed to remain sealed temporarily, and Plaintiff was ordered to refile them with proposed redactions and a revised sealing motion by November 14, 2022.
The detailed version
- Robinson v. De Niro · No. 1:19-cv-09156
- Lewis Liman
- Nov. 1, 2022
Background
The parties jointly requested permission to file all documents submitted with their summary-judgment briefing under seal on a temporary basis. The requested documents included memoranda of law, statements of material facts, declarations, and exhibits containing or discussing material designated confidential under the parties’ protective order. The parties proposed exchanging redaction proposals after reply briefs were filed and then submitting a joint letter identifying their proposed redactions.
Ruling
The court denied the parties’ motion to temporarily file all summary-judgment papers under seal without regard to the information’s confidentiality or sensitivity. The court explained that documents filed in connection with summary judgment carry a presumption of public access. A party seeking to seal information must show that closing access is essential to protect a higher value and is narrowly tailored to that purpose.
The court directed that any request to seal or redact be filed publicly and explain the particular reasons for the request without placing the confidential information in the public filing. Supporting papers could be filed under seal or in redacted form only as necessary. For a proposed redaction, the filing party must publicly file the redacted document and separately file the unredacted version under seal with the proposed redactions identified.
Documents already filed under seal at ECF Nos. 282–83 and 285–97 were permitted to remain under seal temporarily. The court ordered Plaintiff to refile those documents by November 14, 2022, with proposed redactions and a revised motion explaining why the redactions were needed. The court also noted that the parties could agree that information labeled confidential need not be filed under seal, without violating their confidentiality agreement.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.