Armouth International, Inc. v. Michael Fallas
- Colleen McMahon
- 1:19-cv-03669
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Armouth International v. Michael Fallas, Judge Figueredo denied Armouth’s sealing request without prejudice because it did not justify restricting public access.
Armouth International, Inc.’s request to restrict public access to filings was denied without prejudice; the clerk was directed to keep specified filings sealed temporarily, and both parties could submit a renewed sealing request.
What happened
Armouth International, Inc. asked to seal exhibits and redact parts of filings submitted with its opposition to Michael Fallas’s summary-judgment motion. The requested materials included Armouth’s legal memorandum, a statement responding to undisputed facts, and an exhibit.
The court explained that documents connected to a summary-judgment motion are generally presumed open to the public. Armouth relied mainly on a protective order and the fact that Fallas had marked information “Confidential,” but it did not specifically explain why sealing was necessary or narrowly tailored. The court noted that the documents appeared possibly to contain sensitive business or financial information, but Armouth did not make that argument.
Judge Figueredo denied Armouth’s motion to seal without prejudice. The parties could submit a renewed motion explaining specifically why sealing or redaction was appropriate, and the clerk was directed to keep certain filings sealed while that renewed request was pending.
The detailed version
- Armouth International, Inc. v. Michael Fallas · No. 1:19-cv-03669
- Colleen McMahon
- Mar. 31, 2023
Background
Armouth International, Inc. filed a letter motion seeking to seal certain exhibits attached to the declaration of Benjamin I. Bassoff and to file several other materials with proposed redactions. The materials were submitted in connection with Armouth’s opposition to Michael Fallas’s motion for summary judgment.
Legal standard
The court explained that the common law and the First Amendment create a presumption that the public may access judicial documents. A judicial document is a filed item relevant to the court’s function and useful in the judicial process. To overcome that presumption, a party must provide specific reasons showing that sealing is necessary to protect important interests and that the requested sealing is narrowly tailored. The presumption is particularly significant for materials filed with a dispositive motion, such as a summary-judgment motion.
Courts may permit sealing or redaction to protect commercially sensitive business or financial information. But a party cannot justify sealing merely by pointing to a protective order or a confidentiality designation used during discovery.
Court’s analysis
Armouth argued that sealing and redaction were appropriate because the materials included documents or information that Fallas had marked “Confidential” under the case’s protective order. The court found that this explanation was insufficient. Although the materials appeared possibly to contain commercially sensitive financial and business information, Armouth did not identify that as the basis for its motion or explain specifically why disclosure should be prevented.
Disposition
Judge Valerie Figueredo denied Armouth’s letter motion to seal without prejudice. The parties were permitted to submit a renewed letter motion explaining specifically why sealing or redaction was appropriate under the governing standard, with a submission deadline of April 14, 2023. The clerk was directed to maintain ECF Nos. 100, 101, and 104 under seal pending a renewed motion and to terminate the motion at ECF No. 99.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.