Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Mar. 23, 2023

Grossberg v. FOX Corporation

Judge
Jesse Furman
Docket
1:23-cv-02368
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
3
Civil Procedure
In one sentence

In Grossberg v. FOX Corporation, Judge Furman denied as moot defendants’ motion to seal a publicly accessible complaint.

Who this affects

The defendants’ request to seal the complaint was denied, and the complaint remained publicly accessible.

What happened

In Grossberg v. FOX Corporation, Abby Grossberg sued Fox Corporation, Fox News, and individuals, alleging discrimination based on gender and religion. The opinion addresses only the defendants’ emergency request to seal the complaint.

The defendants argued that the complaint included information protected by attorney-client privilege and attorney work product. The court noted, however, that the complaint was already publicly accessible and had been widely reported.

Judge Jesse M. Furman denied the motion to seal as moot and directed the Clerk of Court to terminate the motion. The opinion did not decide Grossberg’s discrimination claims.

The detailed version

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

Case
Grossberg v. FOX Corporation · No. 1:23-cv-02368
Judge
Jesse Furman
Date
Mar. 23, 2023

Background

Abby Grossberg, a former producer at Fox News Network LLC, filed a complaint against Fox Corporation, Fox News, and various individuals. She alleged discrimination based on gender and religion.

Two days later, the defendants filed an emergency motion to seal the complaint. They argued that it contained information protected by the attorney-client privilege and the attorney-work-product doctrine. The opinion states that defense counsel had been given a draft of the complaint before it was filed and had warned that portions contained privileged and confidential information.

Court’s Analysis

The court explained that the defendants’ arguments might have had force if they had sought permission to file the complaint under seal before filing it. But the complaint was already publicly accessible in its entirety and had been widely reported, including by news organizations and on social media.

Because the information was already public, the court concluded that it could not make the information private again. The court stated that sealing was not the appropriate remedy for any improper disclosure of privileged or confidential communications under these circumstances.

Ruling

Judge Jesse M. Furman denied the defendants’ motion to seal as moot. The Clerk of Court was directed to terminate ECF No. 8. The opinion did not rule on the merits of Grossberg’s discrimination allegations.

The authoritative version

Read the full 3-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.