Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Jan. 11, 2023

McKoy v. The Trump Corporation and Donald J. Trump

Full caption

Catherine McKoy, Marcus Frazier and Lynn Chadwick v. The Trump Corporation and Donald J. Trump

Judge
Lorna Schofield
Docket
1:18-cv-09936
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
2
Civil ProcedureFirst Amendment
In one sentence

McKoy v. Trump Corporation: Judge Schofield denied plaintiffs’ motion to seal a filing, finding public access outweighed confidentiality.

Who this affects

The plaintiffs, the defendants, and members of the public seeking access to the court filings were affected. The document at Docket 499 was ordered unsealed.

What happened

In Catherine McKoy, Marcus Frazier and Lynn Chadwick v. The Trump Corporation and Donald J. Trump, the plaintiffs asked to seal parts of a letter about scheduling the trial and motions.

The plaintiffs said the information had been labeled confidential under a protective order. They also said the defendants were the parties interested in keeping it confidential and took no position on sealing it.

Judge Lorna G. Schofield denied the motion because no party overcame the public’s right to access court filings. She directed the Clerk of Court to close the motion and unseal the document.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
McKoy v. The Trump Corporation and Donald J. Trump · No. 1:18-cv-09936
Judge
Lorna Schofield
Date
Jan. 11, 2023

Background

On November 21, 2022, the plaintiffs filed a letter concerning a trial date and the briefing schedule for summary-judgment and class-certification motions. The same day, they filed a letter motion asking to file parts of that letter under seal because the information had been designated confidential under the operative protective order. The plaintiffs stated that the defendants were the parties with an interest in confidential treatment and that the plaintiffs took no position on sealing.

The Court’s Analysis

The court noted that Southern District of New York Individual Rule I.D.3 requires a party with an interest in confidential treatment to file a letter within two business days explaining why documents should be filed in redacted form when another party files the document. The defendants did not file that letter. Their response to the trial-scheduling letter also did not address the sealing request.

The court explained that documents filed on the docket are presumed to be open to the public. No party had overcome that presumption. The court further found that the redacted information was central to the plaintiffs’ claims and did not fit a recognized exception to public access, such as specific business information that could benefit competitors or sensitive personal information.

Disposition

The court denied the plaintiffs’ letter motion to seal. It directed the Clerk of Court to close the motion at Docket 497 and unseal the document at Docket 499.

The authoritative version

Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.