Gentile v. Crededio

Background

The plaintiffs moved to file under seal the unredacted version of their amended complaint and Exhibits A and B. The plaintiffs described the exhibits as versions of the work involved in their dispute and sought to prevent public disclosure.

The court explained that judicial records—documents filed with and used by a court—are generally subject to public access. Under the standard applied by the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, pleadings are judicial documents, and a strong presumption of access applies under both the First Amendment and federal common law.

Plaintiffs’ Arguments

The plaintiffs argued that sealing was necessary because the documents contained sensitive and proprietary information and implicated their privacy interests. They also argued that disclosure could cause competitive harm because the work was unfinished, would undergo further edits, and might be offered to potential buyers.

Court’s Analysis

The court found that these assertions were conclusory and did not identify the specific information at issue, the privacy interests involved, or how disclosure would harm those interests. It also found that the plaintiffs’ alleged competitive harm was too vague. The court noted that several versions of the work had already been submitted by the plaintiffs and defendants to third parties for registration, and that the plaintiffs alleged the work had undergone many changes. Those facts made it unclear how disclosure of earlier versions would harm the plaintiffs’ bargaining position or ability to sell the work.

The court rejected reliance on a prior sealing order that concerned material irrelevant to the decision in that case. Here, the documents the plaintiffs sought to seal were central to the dispute because the court might need to evaluate the work and compare the contributions allegedly made by the parties when resolving the authorship issue.

The court also held that the plaintiffs’ designation of the work as “Confidential” and an alleged confidentiality agreement with Defendant Crededio were not enough, by themselves, to overcome the presumption of public access. The party seeking to seal judicial documents bears the burden of showing that a higher value justifies sealing and that sealing is narrowly tailored.

Disposition

The court denied the plaintiffs’ motion to file the unredacted amended complaint and Exhibits A and B under seal. It directed the plaintiffs to file those unredacted documents on the public docket by March 24, 2023. The order resolved docket entry 36.