Kliot v. Marchionno

Background

The court considered Plaintiff Ilya Kliot’s second motion to seal documents attached to a declaration by his lawyer, Vince F. Sykes. The declaration and exhibits were filed in connection with Defendants’ motion to disqualify Sykes from representing Kliot. Before representing Kliot, Sykes had represented Defendant Joseph Marchionno in uncontested divorce proceedings from June 2019 through August 2020.

The exhibits included documents from Marchionno’s divorce and related Family Court proceedings, including pleadings, affidavits, findings of fact and conclusions of law, a note of issue, a judgment of divorce, and child-support and custody-related orders. Kliot’s counsel first filed the exhibits under seal without a proper application. After the court directed counsel to file a sealing motion, an initial motion was denied without prejudice because it did not explain why the documents needed to be sealed, particularly in their entirety. The second sealing motion was the motion decided here.

Legal standard and analysis

The court explained that judicial documents—records relevant to the court’s decision-making and useful in the judicial process—are presumed to be open to the public. The exhibits qualified as judicial documents because they were submitted and considered in evaluating the motion to disqualify Sykes.

Kliot relied on Section 166 of the New York Family Court Act and Section 235 of the New York Domestic Relations Law. The court concluded that merely citing those provisions did not justify sealing all the records. Relying on reasoning from other Southern District of New York decisions, the court stated that those statutes did not automatically overcome the public’s right of access to federal court records. The court also stated that Section 235’s restrictions apply to specified court officers and clerks, not to litigants or their counsel.

After independently reviewing the exhibits, the court found nothing so sensitive, embarrassing, or inflammatory that it overcame the public interest in open judicial proceedings. It also found nothing damaging to the parties or any minor child. The court noted, however, that the parties would have an additional opportunity to identify particular portions warranting continued sealing.

The court further identified information that had to be redacted under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 5.2 and the Southern District of New York’s electronic filing rules. This included Social Security numbers except for the last four digits, full birthdates except for the birth year, the name of a known minor except for the minor’s initials, and financial account numbers except for the last four digits.

Disposition

The court denied the second motion to seal, subject to the parties showing cause in writing, on a document-by-document basis, why any specific portions should remain sealed. Any such explanation was due by February 1, 2023. If no further sealing arguments were made, Kliot was required by February 8, 2023, to make the required privacy redactions and refile the entire declaration and its exhibits publicly in redacted form. If a party raised document-specific sealing issues by February 1, the February 8 deadline would be held in abeyance while the court resolved those issues. Judge Andrew E. Krause issued the Decision and Order.